A name or term that appears in the list of Judah’s descendants (1 Chron. 4:1–23). A descendant named “Ashhur” (1 Chron. 4:5) had two wives, including Naarah. The text says that Ashhur and Naarah had three sons, Ahuzzam, Hepher, and Temeni, whose names are followed by “Haahashtari,” referring either to a fourth son or a family line, the Ahashtarites (Ashurites), a description of the preceding names (1 Chron. 4:6).

The leader of a priestly family whose descendants were among those who returned to Jerusalem led by Zerubbabel after the exile in Babylon (Neh. 7:63). However, upon a search of the ancestral registration, records of their priesthood could not be located, so they were excluded from priestly service and prohibited from eating from the holy things until their legitimacy as priests could be demonstrated (Ezra 2:61–63; Neh. 7:63–65). The name appears as “Habaiah” in Ezra 2:61. See also 1 Esd. 5:38.

Little biographical information is given regarding Habakkuk, but much is communicated about him in the short book that bears his name. His name comes from a Hebrew word meaning “to embrace.” Nothing is said of his lineage or historical context, though twice he identifies himself as a prophet (Hab. 1:1; 3:1). His use of poetry, visions, woe oracles, and music and his description of the temple make his identification as a temple prophet appealing.

Habakkuk describes two roles that he fulfills in his calling from God. First, as a prophet he brings the concerns of the people to God. Second, as a watchman he receives and interprets the response of God to the people. Thus, he serves the dual roles of interceding on behalf of the people to God and mediating the messages from God to the people.

The primary textual clue to the historical context in which the prophet ministers is in Hab. 1:6, in which the Babylonians are depicted as ruthless destroyers of God’s people and their territory. Accordingly, the prophet best seems to fit sometime in the latter years of the seventh century BC. Attempts to identify Habakkuk with others in Scripture, such as the son of the Shunammite woman (2 Kings 4:16) or the watchman in Isa. 21:6, are speculative and do not fit the context of Hab. 1:5–6.

Several apocryphal traditions have arisen concerning Habakkuk. In the Old Greek version of the apocryphal book Bel and the Dragon, he is described as “the son of Jesus” from the tribe of Levi and a contemporary of the prophet Daniel (vv. 1–2). Further traditions regarding Habakkuk appear in the Pseudepigrapha, midrashim, and other extrabiblical works.

The book of Habakkuk reveals a man of intense concern, thoughtful reflection, profound conviction, careful obedience, and godly character. He brings two primary concerns to God. First, the prophet bemoans God’s tolerance of the sin of his people. Second, once assured of God’s judgment, the prophet questions God’s use of a more ungodly nation to judge Israel’s sin. God patiently answers his servant’s concerns, and Habakkuk promises to wait for the fulfillment of God’s plan and to deliver it clearly while faithfully maintaining his duty.

The grandfather of Jaazaniah, a member of the religious sect of the Rekabites mentioned in Jer. 35:3. The name means “Yahweh has made me joyful,” expressing the joy of the mother at the birth of her son.

A Middle English term for a breastplate, body armor, or a coat of mail. The KJV uses the term five times to translate three different Hebrew words. In 2 Chron. 26:14; Neh. 4:16 the Hebrew term shiryon is variously translated in modern versions as “breastplates,” “body armor,” “armor,” “coats of armor,” and “coats of mail.” The second term, shiryah, in Job 41:26 is recognized today not as body armor but as an offensive weapon, a “javelin” (NIV, NLT, NASB, RSV, NRSV), “lance” (JPS), “arrow” (HCSB), or “dart” (NET). The meaning of the third term, takhra’, in Exod. 28:32; 39:23 is debated, and it may refer to a collar of some kind (NIV: “collar”; NLT: “woven collar”), an “opening in a garment” (RSV; ESV), or a “coat of mail” (NASB; NRSV).

The word “habitation” does not occur in the NIV, but it is fairly common in the KJV and the NASB. Generally, it refers either to a person’s home (Isa. 32:18) or, more commonly in the Bible, to the geographic location of one’s home (e.g., Ps. 79:7). It also is commonly used as a reference to the place where God lives in the heavens (Deut. 26:15; Ps. 68:5), the temple (Ps. 26:8), or the city of Zion (Ps. 132:13). The psalmist also envisions God as the psalmist’s habitation in times of trouble (Ps. 71:3).

A tributary of the Euphrates (the modern-day Nahr el-Khabur). It was a destination to which the exiles from Samaria (2 Kings 17:6; 18:11) and Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh were deported (1 Chron. 5:26).

The father of Nehemiah, who was the governor of Jerusalem and who helped to organize the building of the wall of Jerusalem (Neh. 1:1; 10:1). The KJV spells the name as “Hachaliah.”

A hill near where David hid from Saul when Saul was trying to kill him (1 Sam. 23:19; 26:1, 3).

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

In Zech. 12:10–14 Hadad Rimmon serves a figurative function in underscoring the intensity of the mourning for “the one they have pierced.” But its identity is still debated. Traditionally, it has been taken as denoting a place on the Plain of Megiddo, where Judah and Jerusalem mourned for the death of Josiah. Some modern scholars, however, find in Hadad Rimmon a compound name of two gods who are similar in nature, Hadad (a Syrian storm god) and Ramman (“thunderer” in Akkadian). “The weeping of Hadad Rimmon,” then, would refer to mourning rites for the deity (cf. Ezek. 8:14).

The king of Zobah defeated by David. In David’s time, Hadadezer’s sphere of influence extended southward to the northern Transjordan and eastward to the Upper Euphrates. Hadadezer encountered David’s army in battle on three occasions. First, when David sent an army under the command of Joab against the Ammonites, who had insulted David’s ambassadors, the Aramaean coalition army led by Hadadezer marched to the relief of the besieged city of Rabbath at the request of the Ammonites (2 Sam. 10:1–14). Second, when Hadadezer, unwilling to lose face after being routed by Joab, raised a new army “from beyond the River” under the command of Shobach, David himself moved to Helam and defeated the Aramean army (10:15–19). Third, David later took vengeance on Hadadezer for his interference in the Ammonite war (8:3–8) by invading the heartland of Hadadezer’s realm. These campaigns by David against the Arameans and the Ammonites resulted in his securing control of the King’s Highway.

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

The king of Zobah defeated by David. In David’s time, Hadadezer’s sphere of influence extended southward to the northern Transjordan and eastward to the Upper Euphrates. Hadadezer encountered David’s army in battle on three occasions. First, when David sent an army under the command of Joab against the Ammonites, who had insulted David’s ambassadors, the Aramaean coalition army led by Hadadezer marched to the relief of the besieged city of Rabbath at the request of the Ammonites (2 Sam. 10:1–14). Second, when Hadadezer, unwilling to lose face after being routed by Joab, raised a new army “from beyond the River” under the command of Shobach, David himself moved to Helam and defeated the Aramean army (10:15–19). Third, David later took vengeance on Hadadezer for his interference in the Ammonite war (8:3–8) by invading the heartland of Hadadezer’s realm. These campaigns by David against the Arameans and the Ammonites resulted in his securing control of the King’s Highway.

A town in the western foothills that was part of the tribe of Judah’s traditional territorial allotment (Josh. 15:37). Its exact location is unknown.

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).

A town that was part of the tribe of Judah’s traditional territorial allotment (Josh. 15:25). It was located in the southernmost part of Judah, near the border with Edom. Although the KJV translates the name as two separate towns, most scholars believe that Hazor Hadattah is one town.

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

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

A town listed along with Lod and Ono to which some of the Babylonian exiles returned (Ezra 2:33; Neh. 7:37; 11:34). It is located in the northern Shephelah, approximately three and a half miles east of Lod, identified with modern Tel al-Haditha.

The father of Amasa, one of the Ephraimite leaders during the reign of Pekah. Amasa was one of four leaders who protested against their kinsmen who were going to bring guilt on their people by taking Judahites captive (2 Chron. 28:11–12).

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

The land mentioned in Zech. 9:1 associated with Damascus, Hamath, Tyre, and Sidon, all of which were Aramean city-states. There are a few extrabiblical references to the city, and perhaps the most telling is Hadrak’s mention in Tiglath-pileser III’s annals. The annals mention it as one of the nineteen districts that allied to support Azariah of Judah in 742 BC. It is located in Syria, north of Damascus and possibly is identified with present-day Tel Afis, approximately twenty-eight miles southwest of Aleppo.

The land mentioned in Zech. 9:1 associated with Damascus, Hamath, Tyre, and Sidon, all of which were Aramean city-states. There are a few extrabiblical references to the city, and perhaps the most telling is Hadrak’s mention in Tiglath-pileser III’s annals. The annals mention it as one of the nineteen districts that allied to support Azariah of Judah in 742 BC. It is located in Syria, north of Damascus and possibly is identified with present-day Tel Afis, approximately twenty-eight miles southwest of Aleppo.

A town allocated to the tribe of Benjamin after the conquest (Josh. 18:28). It is located in the vicinity of Jerusalem, perhaps identified with Lifta, a village west of Jerusalem, or Nephtoa, a village between Benjamin and Judah. Based on its rendering in a particular Greek text, some have suggested Haeleph should be joined with the previous name and read as a single town, Zela-Haeleph.

In Judg. 3:22 the KJV renders the Hebrew term nitsab as “haft,” referring to the handle of Ehud’s dagger (NIV: “handle”; NRSV: “hilt”).

One of the ancestors of the temple servants (Nethinim) who returned to Jerusalem after the Babylonian captivity under the leadership of Zerubbabel in 539 BC or soon after (Ezra 2:46; missing from the list in Neh. 7). The fact that many of the names in the list are foreign has led to the belief that they were originally prisoners of war who were pressed into service to perform menial tasks as they assisted the Levites. The name is also found on an ostracon (shard of pottery) from Lachish.

One of the ancestors of the temple servants (Nethinim) who returned to Jerusalem after the Babylonian captivity under the leadership of Zerubbabel in 539 BC or soon after (Ezra 2:45; Neh. 7:48: “Hagaba”). The fact that many of the names in the list are foreign has led to the belief that they were originally prisoners of war who were pressed into service to perform menial tasks as they assisted the Levites.

One of the ancestors of the temple servants (Nethinim) who returned to Jerusalem after the Babylonian captivity under the leadership of Zerubbabel in 539 BC or soon after (Ezra 2:45; Neh. 7:48: “Hagaba”). The fact that many of the names in the list are foreign has led to the belief that they were originally prisoners of war who were pressed into service to perform menial tasks as they assisted the Levites.

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

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

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

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

The father of Mibhar, one of David’s thirty mighty men (1 Chron. 11:38). The Hebrew of the parallel text in 2 Sam. 23:36 has bani haggadi, “Bani the Gadite” (KJV, NRSV, NET), which the NIV renders as “son of Hagri” in harmony with 1 Chron. 11:38. These two verses make it difficult to understand who Hagri is and may involve a textual corruption. See also Hagrites.

The father of Zabdiel. Zabdiel was the chief officer of a priestly clan that was elected to live within Jerusalem’s city wall once Nehemiah completed it (Neh. 11:14). It is also possible that “Haggedolim” is not a proper name, but rather that in the Hebrew phrase ben-haggedolim the second word should be translated literally to read “Zabdiel, son of [one of] the great men” (cf. KJV).

The father of Mibhar, one of David’s thirty mighty men (1 Chron. 11:38). The Hebrew of the parallel text in 2 Sam. 23:36 has bani haggadi, “Bani the Gadite” (KJV, NRSV, NET), which the NIV renders as “son of Hagri” in harmony with 1 Chron. 11:38. These two verses make it difficult to understand who Hagri is and may involve a textual corruption. See also Hagrites.

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

A Levite who was a temple musician. His father was Shimea, and his son was Asaiah (1 Chron. 6:30).

One of the clans descended from Gad listed in Moses’ census (Num. 26:15).

One of David’s wives, the mother of David’s fourth son, Adonijah (2 Sam. 3:4; 1 Chron. 3:2). Her son attempted to force the succession when David was old, but he was undermined by the prophet Nathan and David’s wife Bathsheba, who interceded with the aged king on behalf of Solomon (1 Kings 1:1–27).

“Hagiographa” is from the Greek for “holy writings.” The term refers to the third and last division of the threefold Hebrew canon, the Ketubim (the first two divisions being the Law [Torah] and the Prophets [Nebiim]). It is a loose collection comprising (in the Hebrew order) the poetic books (Psalms, Proverbs, Job), the Megilloth or Five Scrolls (Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther), the apocalyptic book of Daniel, and historical books (Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles). Other appellations for this portion of the Hebrew Scriptures abound in earlier sources: “writings of David” (2 Macc. 2:13); “other books” (prologue to Si-rach); “the Psalms” (Luke 24:44). It is not clear, however, precisely which books are included in these designations. The Christian canons do not place these books in a single corpus, preferring instead to classify according to literary genus.

The father of Mibhar, one of David’s thirty mighty men (1 Chron. 11:38). The Hebrew of the parallel text in 2 Sam. 23:36 has bani haggadi, “Bani the Gadite” (KJV, NRSV, NET), which the NIV renders as “son of Hagri” in harmony with 1 Chron. 11:38. These two verses make it difficult to understand who Hagri is and may involve a textual corruption. See also Hagrites.

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

A site where God instructed the Israelites to camp after they departed from Egypt (Exod. 14:2). This is the location where Pharaoh and his army overtook them and from which they crossed the sea (Exod. 14:9; Num. 33:7–8). Pi Hahiroth is described as being between Migdol and the Red Sea and near Baal Zephon. This places the site on the eastern border of Lower Egypt. The site is unknown to modern archaeology.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(1) A form of precipitation consisting of balls of ice or compact snow. Of the nearly thirty occurrences of “hail” in the OT, twenty refer to hail as God’s weapon used against Egypt. The seventh exodus plague is a theophanic hailstorm, causing death for the first time (Exod. 9:18–33; cf. Pss. 78:47–48; 105:32). Hail is part of the weaponry of God as divine warrior (Ps. 18:12). God keeps “stockpiles” of hail for battle (Job 38:22–23; cf. Rev. 8:7; 16:21). Hail can both defend and punish Israel (Josh. 10:11; Isa. 28:2) but also glorify God (Ps. 148:8). (2) A word of greeting (Matt. 27:29; Mark 15:18; John 19:3) or a verb meaning “to greet or summon” (1 Sam. 14:12 ESV, NRSV, NASB). See also Greeting.

A number of Hebrew and Greek words are used in the Bible to refer to hair and hairstyles. Most of the references are to human hair (e.g., Lev. 19:27), but occasionally animal hair is intended (Matt. 3:4; Rev. 6:12). God numbers the hairs of our head (Matt. 10:30); not one hair will perish if God is the protector (Isa. 46:4; Luke 21:18).

Hairstyles varied throughout the ancient Near East according to place and period. For example, the Egyptians shaved their heads, but Semitic men and women generally wore their hair long and admired black hair (2 Sam. 14:26; see also Song 5:11, where hair is described as wavy). Ancient Near Eastern tomb paintings and reliefs depict Semitic men with thick black hair and pointed beards and women with their long, black hair tied and hanging down the back. As a sign of age, white hair was regarded with great respect (Lev. 19:32; Prov. 16:31). Much later, at the time of the apostle Paul, long hair on men was considered shameful (1 Cor. 11:14), while for women long hair was the ideal (11:15).

Beards and hair were dressed, adorned, anointed with oil, perfumed, and curled (2 Kings 9:30; Eccles. 9:8; Isa. 3:18–24; Matt. 26:7). The NT, however, advises moderation in hairstyles (1 Tim. 2:9; 1 Pet. 3:3–6). Barbers used razors to cut hair and beards (Ezek. 5:1; cf. Isa. 7:20). To shave or pluck out another person’s hair was a grave insult (2 Sam. 10:4–5; Isa. 50:6). It was also uncommon to untie a woman’s hair in public (Num. 5:18; cf. Luke 7:38).

Cutting or shaving hair often had social or religious significance. During times of mourning and affliction, hair on the head and beard was shaved or plucked out (Ezra 9:3; Isa. 15:2; Jer. 16:6). Sometimes the beard was left untrimmed (2 Sam. 19:24). A Nazirite was not to cut his hair during the days of his vow (Num. 6:5). At the conclusion of the vow, his hair was offered with a sacrifice (Num. 6:18). Offering hair for the dead and cutting the corners of the beard was prohibited in the law (Deut. 14:1; Lev. 19:27). Priests were not to shave their heads or allow their hair to grow long (Lev. 21:5; Ezek. 44:20). Prophets may have marked themselves by a partial shaving of the head (1 Kings 20:35–43; 2 Kings 2:23).

The father of Nehemiah, who was the governor of Jerusalem and who helped to organize the building of the wall of Jerusalem (Neh. 1:1; 10:1). The KJV spells the name as “Hachaliah.”

The place where Judas Iscariot met his demise after betraying Jesus. According to the book of Acts, with the money he received for betraying Jesus to the chief priests, he bought a field, where “he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out”; the inhabitants of Jerusalem called the field “Akeldama,” an Aramaic name meaning “field of blood” (Acts 1:18–19). According to Matt. 27:7–8, the field was purchased by the chief priests and subsequently used as a burial place for foreigners. The two passages may be harmonized by supposing that (1) in the Acts account Luke means that Judas indirectly purchased the field because his money was used to purchase it; (2) Judas hanged himself, as Matthew says, but the rapidly decaying body fell from the rope and burst open, as Acts asserts; or (3) as so often with place names, the original of the name was understood differently by different people. Perhaps the place was known as “Field of Blood” because it was purchased with blood money, but the subsequent suicide of Judas at that location caused some early Christians to associate the name with his gory death there.

A hill near where David hid from Saul when Saul was trying to kill him (1 Sam. 23:19; 26:1, 3).

The father of Johanan, the leader of the family of Azgad, who returned to Judah with Ezra (Ezra 8:12).

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.

(1) A variation of the name “Koz” in the ASV of 1 Chron. 4:8. (2) A priestly clan, listed seventh of those ministering in the temple contemporary with David (1 Chron. 24:10). This clan was excluded after the exile because their genealogical records were lost (Ezra 2:61–62; Neh. 7:63–64). (3) Grandfather to one who repaired a section of Jerusalem’s wall (Neh. 3:4, 21). See also Koz.

(1) Either the father or an ancestor of Jashobeam, one of David’s champions (1 Chron. 11:11). The confusion comes from the Hebrew phrase ben-khakmoni (NRSV: “son of Hachmoni”), where the ending of khakmoni ordinarily would indicate that it is not a proper name but rather a familial or tribal affiliation. However, using the formula “son of” for a people group would be somewhat inconsistent, so the phrase is rendered “a Hakmonite” in the NIV. It is possible that takhkemoni in 2 Sam. 23:8 (NIV: “Tahkemonite”; NRSV: “Tahchemonite”) is a variation. (2) Either the father or ancestor of Jehiel, who took care of King David’s sons (1 Chron. 27:32). The same issues apply as in 1 Chron. 11:11, but here the NIV translates the phrase as “son of Hakmoni.”

(1) Either the father or an ancestor of Jashobeam, one of David’s champions (1 Chron. 11:11). The confusion comes from the Hebrew phrase ben-khakmoni (NRSV: “son of Hachmoni”), where the ending of khakmoni ordinarily would indicate that it is not a proper name but rather a familial or tribal affiliation. However, using the formula “son of” for a people group would be somewhat inconsistent, so the phrase is rendered “a Hakmonite” in the NIV. It is possible that takhkemoni in 2 Sam. 23:8 (NIV: “Tahkemonite”; NRSV: “Tahchemonite”) is a variation. (2) Either the father or ancestor of Jehiel, who took care of King David’s sons (1 Chron. 27:32). The same issues apply as in 1 Chron. 11:11, but here the NIV translates the phrase as “son of Hakmoni.”

One of the ancestors of the temple servants (Nethinim) who returned to Jerusalem after the Babylonian captivity under the leadership of Zerubbabel in 539 BC or soon after (Ezra 2:51; Neh. 7:53). The fact that many of the names in the list of ancestors are foreign has led to the belief that they were originally prisoners of war who were pressed into service to perform menial tasks as they assisted the Levites.

A district in Media to which Israelites were taken after their revolt against Assyria. According to 2 Kings 17:6, “In the ninth year of Hoshea, the king of Assyria captured Samaria and deported the Israelites to Assyria. He settled them in Halah, in Gozan on the Habor River and in the towns of the Medes” (cf. 2 Kings 18:11; 1 Chron. 5:26). The location of this area of Assyria is uncertain. The texts in which Halah is mentioned seem to imply that it was near Gozan and the Habor River, which lie in modern-day Syria. See also Gozan.

Paid in March for the upkeep of the temple, particularly the sacrifices (Matt. 17:24–27 [NIV: “two-drachma temple tax”]; cf. Josephus, Ant. 18.312). The law required every male who was twenty-years-old and older to give a half shekel (Exod. 30:13–16). Nehemiah made the tax annual, but at one-third shekel (Neh. 10:32). The amounts stated in the law and in the cycle of Nehemiah were eventually conflated. Even Jews living in the Diaspora paid the tax (Philo, Embassy 156; Let. Aris. 40).

In the Bible the term “half-tribe” describes the portion of the tribe of Manasseh that settled on the eastern side of the Jordan River (e.g., Josh. 18:7; 22:1). A portion of the tribe of Manasseh also received land on the western side of the Jordan River, and the Bible uses the term to distinguish between the two portions. The term can also refer to the tribe of either Ephraim or Manasseh, since they are the offspring of the tribe of Joseph.

A town in the hill country of Judah (Josh. 15:58).

A town on the border of the tribe of Asher (Josh. 19:25).

A large room, usually in a palace or a temple (1 Kings 6:3). The hall, or main room, in Solomon’s temple was surrounded by smaller side rooms (1 Kings 6:5), had entrance doors framed with olive wood (1 Kings 6:33), and was paneled with juniper decorated with gold (2 Chron. 3:5). Solomon’s throne room was called the “Hall of Justice” (1 Kings 7:7). Queen Esther waited outside the king’s hall, or throne room, for an audience with the Persian king (Esther 5:1). A royal or official banquet room is a hall (1 Sam. 9:22; Esther 7:8; Song 2:4; Dan. 5:10; Matt. 22:10).

In the KJV, the governor’s palace, or praetorium, where Jesus was led after his arrest is identified as a hall (Matt. 27:27; Mark 15:16) or hall of judgment (John 18:28, 33; 19:9), as are the courtyard where Peter first denied Jesus (Luke 22:55) and the palace of Herod Agrippa, where Paul was kept under guard (Acts 23:35). When Paul could no longer preach in the synagogue in Ephesus, he held daily discussions in the lecture hall of Tyrannus (Acts 19:9).

The building in Solomon’s palace where he heard complaints and rendered judicial decisions (1 Kings 7:7 [NET, NASB, HCSB: “Hall of Judgment”]). The Hall of Justice was covered with cedar from floor to ceiling. In the KJV, the praitōrion of the Roman governor in John 18:28 is rendered as “hall of judgment” (NIV: “palace”; NRSV: “headquarters”).

The building in Solomon’s palace where he heard complaints and rendered judicial decisions (1 Kings 7:7 [NET, NASB, HCSB: “Hall of Judgment”]). The Hall of Justice was covered with cedar from floor to ceiling. In the KJV, the praitōrion of the Roman governor in John 18:28 is rendered as “hall of judgment” (NIV: “palace”; NRSV: “headquarters”).

The Hebrew verb “praise” (in the imperative form). Hallel is used generally to refer to psalms that contain the command “Hallelujah (“praise the Lord”; “jah” is a shortened form of YHWH [“Yahweh”], which is typically translated as “Lord”). It also designates Pss. 113–118, which are collectively referred to as the Egyptian Hallel because they begin with “Praise the Lord” and refer to the exodus and Passover sacrifice. These psalms were read liturgically during Jewish festivals. Their use during family Passover celebrations makes it likely that the hymn sung by Jesus and his disciples after the Last Supper included some of these psalms. Psalm 136 is known as the Great Hallel, as it entreats worshipers to praise God for his great works in creation and salvation from Israel’s enemies. The Psalter ends with five psalms that each begin and end with “praise the Lord” (Pss. 146–150).

A transliteration of the Hebrew phrase halelu yah. The first word is an imperative form of the verb hallal, which means “to praise.” The second word is a derivation of the name of God, “Yahweh,” typically translated as “Lord,” and is the object of the verb. Thus, “hallelujah” means “praise the Lord.” This phrase has become idiomatic for Christian communities, so that the Hebrew pronunciation of “hallelujah” and its use as an exclamation of praise have been preserved. The phrase occurs twenty-four times in the Psalms, beginning at Ps. 104:35, and appears the most frequently in the last five psalms (Pss. 146–150).

One of the “leaders of the people” who sealed the covenant with God following Ezra’s public reading of the law (Neh. 10:24). Hallohesh is also named as the father of Shallum, who made repairs to Jerusalem under Nehemiah (Neh. 3:12).

To dedicate something is to set it apart or to install it, usually for God and his service. According to the book of Leviticus, the Israelites could dedicate (KJV: “sanctify”; NRSV: “consecrate”) animals (27:9–13), houses (27:14–15), and fields (27:16–24), which could be redeemed in most cases; people could be dedicated as well (27:2–8). Additionally, individuals could dedicate themselves by making a Nazirite vow (Num. 6:2–21). Spoils of war could be dedicated to God (e.g., 2 Sam. 8:11–12; 1 Chron. 26:27). However, the kings of Judah dedicated (some versions: “gave”) horses to the sun (2 Kings 23:11).

The word khanukkah, translated “dedication,” and a related verb denote the ceremonial dedication of the tabernacle’s sacrificial altar (e.g., Num. 7:10), of the first and the second temple (e.g., 1 Kings 8:63; Ezra 6:16–17), of Nehemiah’s wall (Neh. 12:27), and of Nebuchadnezzar’s image (Dan. 3:2–3). The Jewish holiday Hanukkah, or the Feast of Dedication (John 10:22), commemorates the purification of the temple during the intertestamental period.

An older word meaning “lame,” used in the KJV at Matt. 18:8; Mark 9:45; Luke 14:21; John 5:3. See Lame, Lameness.

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

According to the book of Esther, King Xerxes appointed Haman over all the other nobles in his empire (Esther 3:1). However, Mordecai, Esther’s cousin, refused to pay respect to him, and Haman sought not only to kill Mordecai but also to destroy all the Jewish people.

To accomplish his purpose, Haman convinced Xerxes to determine a day (by lots [Heb. purim]) for their destruction. That day was set for almost a year later, and Mordecai, hearing of the plot, persuaded Esther to intervene. The result was the death of Haman, not Mordecai, and the victory of the Jewish people over their enemies. The festival of Purim commemorates this event.

Modern readers often miss the reason for the hatred that existed between Mordecai and Haman. Mordecai was a descendant of Kish and thus also a descendant of King Saul (Esther 2:5), while Haman was an Agagite, which indicates that he was a descendant of the royal line of Amalek (3:1). The story thus goes back to Exod. 17:8–15, when the Amalekites were the first to attack Israel as they left Egypt. For this, God decreed that their memory should be blotted out (Deut. 25:17–19). Saul had his chance when he defeated King Agag of Amalek, but he did not complete the task (1 Sam. 15). Haman’s demise is the completion of this story.

A Hittite city strategically positioned on the Orontes River and the main trade route running south from Asia Minor. Located about halfway between Damascus and Aleppo, it is frequently mentioned with reference to Israel’s northern border—“the entrance to Hamath” or Lebo Hamath (Num. 13:21; 1 Kings 8:65). David received tribute from its king (2 Sam. 8:9–10), and Solomon built storage cities in the area (2 Chron. 8:4). During the exile, some Israelites settled there (Isa. 11:11), and some of its inhabitants were similarly transported to Samaria (2 Kings 17:24).

Possibly a variant of “Hamath,” since no other site with this name is known. Otherwise, the compound name may have been used to refer to an extended region including both Hamath and Zobah, an important Aramean kingdom dating from the eleventh century BC, located between Damascus and Hamath. The only biblical reference to Hamath Zobah states that Solomon captured it and built storage cities in the area (2 Chron. 8:3–4). Solomon’s building program indicates that the region was under his control for a period of time. One important LXX manuscript reads “Beth Zobah” (“house of Zobah”) instead of “Hamath Zobah.” If this reading is correct, the text may simply state that Solomon battled and exerted dominion over the house or kingdom of Zobah.

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

Descendants of Noah’s son Ham. A group of Hamites had once lived in the land near Gedor before the Simeonites settled there (1 Chron. 4:39–40).

(1) A fortified town in Naphtali (Josh. 19:35), located two miles south of Tiberias on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee (modern Hamman Tabariyeh). Its name derives from the hot springs found there. Since the time of Josephus, the hot springs have maintained a reputation for their healing powers. Hammath may be identical with Hammoth Dor (Josh. 21:32) and Hammon (1 Chron. 6:76), a Levitical city in Naphtali. (2) A town nine miles south of Beth Shan (modern Tel el-Hammeh). The stela of Pharaoh Seti I (1303–1290 BC) at Beth Shan recounts how his army defeated the king of Hammath who invaded Beth Shan. If Hammath in 1 Chron. 2:55 is taken as a place name denoting the home of the Kenites, it may refer to this town or to one farther south. (3) “The father of the Rekabites” and the forefather of the Kenites (1 Chron. 2:55).

The father of Haman, the enemy of the Jews mentioned in the book of Esther. He is identified as an Agagite (Esther 3:1), but nothing else is known of him. His name is Persian.

In Jer. 36:26; 38:6 the KJV erroneously translates the Hebrew word hammelek as a proper noun, “Hammelech.” The Hebrew word is composed of the definite article (ha) and the word for “king” (melek) and is properly translated in more-recent versions as “the king.”

Three different Hebrew words are translated as “hammer,” likely indicating that various types of hammers were used in ancient Israel. The exact function of each is not entirely clear, and the references to each are somewhat vague. Judges 5:26 refers to a “workman’s hammer” (Heb. halmut). Judges 4:21; 1 Kings 6:7; Isa. 44:12; Jer.10:4 mention a hammer with which one drives nails or tent pegs, possibly referring to a mallet (Heb. maqqebet). The third type, mentioned in Isa. 41:7; Jer. 23:29; 50:23, is a hammer used for smoothing and crushing stones (Heb. pattish). Complicating our understanding of the various hammers is the LXX, which typically uses the same generic word to translate the various Hebrew terms. The Hebrew at times also suggests that the words may be interchangeable (cf. Judg. 4:21 with 5:26). Hammers were likely made of stone in the earlier periods and later consisted of both stone and metal with a wooden handle.

Gold was sometimes hammered into thin sheets for gilding other surfaces. This technique was used for various temple furnishings, including the altar and the inner sanctuary (1 Kings 6:20–35) and also for idols (Isa. 40:19). Hammered gold could also be made into objects such as candlesticks (Exod. 25:18) or shields (1 Kings 10:16–17).

Hammered silver was used in a similar way to hammered gold for the decoration of less valuable objects. Jeremiah 10:6–10 describes its use as part of a vain attempt to cover up the worthlessness of idols.

Wreathlike scrollwork of a spiral design above and below the animal figures of the bronze panels of the ten movable stands for the lavers in Solomon’s temple (1 Kings 7:29 [NRSV: “beveled work”]). These contributed to the elegance, style, and beauty of highly functional and ceremonial pieces.

The sister of Gilead, she gave birth to three sons, Ishhod, Abiezer, and Mahlah, who were clan leaders in Manasseh (1 Chron. 7:18).

(1) A town that was part of the border of Asher’s traditional territorial allotment (Josh. 19:28). (2) A town given to the Gershonite Levites in the tribe of Naphtali (1 Chron. 6:76).

A Levitical town in Naphtali (Josh. 21:32). It may be the same as Hammath (Josh. 19:35) or Hammon (1 Chron. 6:76).

The son of Mishma, the father of Zakkur, and a descendant of Simeon (1 Chron. 4:26).

King of Babylon

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

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

The Code of Hammurabi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A valley where Israel’s battle with Gog and Magog takes place, described in the enigmatic text of Ezek. 39:11, 15. This valley is where the war dead from this cataclysmic battle will be buried.

A town that, according to Ezekiel, is located in the Valley of Hamon Gog, where Israel’s battle with Gog and Magog will take place and where the war dead from this cataclysmic battle will be buried (Ezek. 39:15–16). Because of the enigmatic nature of this passage, there is debate about whether this town is an actual geographic location or a symbolic place. The name “Hamonah” means “multitude” and could simply refer to the numbers that have died in battle.

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

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

The son of Mishma, the father of Zakkur, and a descendant of Simeon (1 Chron. 4:26).

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

People from the clan of Hamul, the grandson of Judah and son of Perez (Num. 26:21).

The mother of King Jehoahaz of Judah, the son of King Josiah (2 Kings 23:31). She was also the mother of King Zedekiah (2 Kings 24:18; Jer. 52:1), who became king after both Jehoiakim (Jehoahaz’s half brother) and Jehoiachin (Jehoahaz’s nephew) were deposed.

The son of Shallum, Jeremiah’s uncle. Jeremiah purchased a field in Anathoth from his cousin Hanamel to redeem it during the Babylonian invasion of Jerusalem (Jer. 32:7–9, 12). This action expressed faith in God’s promise to restore the people to the land.

The son of Shallum, Jeremiah’s uncle. Jeremiah purchased a field in Anathoth from his cousin Hanamel to redeem it during the Babylonian invasion of Jerusalem (Jer. 32:7–9, 12). This action expressed faith in God’s promise to restore the people to the land.

(1) A Benjamite, one of eleven sons of Shashak (1 Chron. 8:23). (2) A Benjamite, one of six sons of Azel, and a descendant of Saul (1 Chron. 8:38; 9:44). (3) The son of Maakah, he was one of David’s mighty men (1 Chron. 11:43). (4) The head of a family of temple servants who returned to Jerusalem after exile (Ezra 2:46; Neh. 7:49). (5) A Levite who interpreted the law during Ezra’s reforms (Neh. 8:7) and who also sealed Nehemiah’s covenant (Neh. 10:10). (6, 7) Two signers of Nehemiah’s covenant (Neh. 10:22, 26). (8) The son of Zakkur, he was trustworthy and so was appointed as an assistant to Pedaiah, whom Nehemiah put in charge of the storehouses (Neh. 13:13). (9) Jeremiah 35:4 includes the phrase “the room of the sons of Hanan son of Igdaliah.” This Hanan may have been the leader of a guild of prophets or priests living within the temple.

A tower along the northern wall of Jerusalem. It appears that the tower was between the Sheep Gate and the Fish Gate (Neh. 3:1). The exact location is uncertain. Some have posited that this tower and the Tower of the Hundred guarded the northwest side of the Temple Mount. Jeremiah predicted that the tower would be rebuilt (Jer. 31:38), and Nehemiah records that the tower was indeed rebuilt and consecrated with the newly reconstructed wall of Jerusalem (Neh. 3:1; 12:39). The Nehemiah passage may have been intended to demonstrate the fulfillment of this promise; however, Jeremiah’s promise says that the city will never again be destroyed (Jer. 31:40). After Jerusalem’s destruction in AD 70, the rebuilding led by Nehemiah cannot be seen as the final fulfillment of Jer. 31:38. Zechariah speaks of the tower as part of the elevated Jerusalem in God’s eschatological kingdom (Zech. 14:10). This tower may have literary significance, alluding to the certainty of God’s eschatological promises.

(1) A prophet who prophesied against King Asa of Judah because Asa trusted the military might of the Arameans rather than trusting in God. Because of this prophecy, Asa had Hanani put into prison (2 Chron. 16:7–10). (2) The father (perhaps the same person as in 2 Chron. 16:7–10) of Jehu, a prophet during the reigns of King Baasha of Israel and Jehoshaphat of Judah (1 Kings 16:1; 2 Chron. 19:1). Jehu, who should not be confused with the king by the same name, was also a recorder of the history of Israel (2 Chron. 20:34). (3) A Levite who was the son of Heman. He was part of the temple workers entrusted with the ministry of prophesying with music (1 Chron. 25:4, 25). (4) A priest listed among those guilty of marrying a foreign wife (Ezra 10:20). (5) The brother of Nehemiah who reported to Nehemiah the sad state of the wall in Jerusalem (Neh. 1:2). Later, Nehemiah placed him in charge of the gate of Jerusalem (Neh. 7:2). (6) A musician who participated in the celebration, organized by Nehemiah, of the completion of the wall (Neh. 12:36). This may be the same person as in Neh. 1:2; 7:2.

(1) The son of Azzur from Gibeon, he was a false prophet in the time of the prophet Jeremiah. He took the yoke off the neck of Jeremiah and broke it, saying that the “yoke of Babylon” would be broken, which is contrary to Jeremiah’s prophecy. Because Hananiah led people to believe lies, he died in the seventh month of that year in accordance with the prediction of Jeremiah (Jer. 28). (2) One of three godly companions of Daniel. His name was changed to “Shadrach” by the Babylonians (Dan. 1:6–7, 11, 19; 2:17). (3) The father of Zedekiah, he was one of the officials during Jehoiakim’s reign (Jer. 36:12). (4) A grandfather of Irijah, who was the captain of the guard who arrested Jeremiah (Jer. 37:13–15).

(5) A son of Zerubbabel, grandson of King Jehoiachin, who was a descendant of David (1 Chron. 3:19, 21). (6) A postexilic Benjamite, a son of Shashak (1 Chron. 8:24). (7) One of fourteen sons of Heman, he was a postexilic musician and chief of the sixteenth of the twenty-four groups of musicians trained and skilled in music for the Lord (1 Chron. 25:4, 23). (8) One of the royal officials under King Uzziah of Judah (2 Chron. 26:11).

(9) A son of Bebai, he put away his foreign wife under Ezra’s leadership (Ezra 10:28). (10) A perfume maker who helped to rebuild the wall of Jerusalem under the leadership of Nehemiah (Neh. 3:8). (11) A son of Shelemiah, he helped repair the wall of Jerusalem under the leadership of Nehemiah (Neh. 3:30). (12) The commander of the citadel in charge of the whole city of Jerusalem along with Hanani, Nehemiah’s brother, because “he was a man of integrity and feared God more than most people do” (Neh. 7:2). (13) One of the leaders of the people who sealed the covenant with Nehemiah (Neh. 10:23). (14) The head of the priestly family of Jeremiah in the time of Joiakim the high priest, he was present at the dedication of the wall of Jerusalem in the time of Nehemiah (Neh. 12:12, 41).

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

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

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

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

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

A unit of length using the breadth of the palm at the base of the fingers, perhaps 3 to 3.5 inches. It was used to measure items in the tabernacle (Exod. 25:25), Solomon’s temple (1 Kings 7:26), and Ezekiel’s temple (Ezek. 40:5, 43) or metaphorically for the brevity of life (Ps. 39:5).

A cloth for wiping perspiration from the face. People in Ephesus used handkerchiefs that had touched Paul to cure the illnesses of the sick and exorcise evil spirits (Acts 19:12). The same Greek word (soudarion) is used for the facial burial cloths of Lazarus and Jesus (John 11:44; 20:7) and for the cloth used by the wicked servant to store his coin in the parable of the ten minas (Luke 19:20).

The grip of an ax (Deut. 19:5 NRSV) or a sword (Judg. 3:22), or the latch of a door (Song 5:5). The movable basins for the temple had four handles (1 Kings 7:34).

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

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

In Ezek. 39:9, in a list of weapons that the people of Israel will burn for fuel, the KJV translates the Hebrew expression maqqel yad as “handstave.” The Hebrew word refers to a rod, staff, or stick, and in this context of weaponry it may refer to a war club (e.g., NIV) or a javelin (NLT).

An Egyptian city to which Israel sent envoys to solicit Egypt’s help against the Assyrian invasion (Isa. 30:4). Isaiah repeatedly rebukes Israel for seeking help from the Egyptians instead of trusting and depending on God. The location of Hanes is debated. Some identify it with modern Ahnas el-Medina in southern Egypt, seventy miles from Cairo. Others identify it with modern Hanes in the north, east of Tanis.

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

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

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

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

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

(1) The son of Ephod, he was appointed representative of Manassah when the land of Canaan was allocated for each tribe (Num. 34:23). (2) One of the three sons of Ulla from the tribe of Asher (1 Chron. 7:39).

The mother of Samuel and one of two wives of Elkanah from Ramathaim. She was regularly provoked by his other wife, Peninnah, who had children, because God had closed her womb (1 Sam. 1:6). But one year, while worshiping at Shiloh, she prayed for a son, whom she promised to dedicate to God (1:9–11). Although the priest Eli mistook her distress for drunkenness, he subsequently blessed her. She later gave birth to Samuel and dedicated him (1:26–28), and annually she provided him with a robe (2:19). Hannah’s prayer (2:1–10) is often noted for its resemblance to the later prayer of Mary the mother of Jesus (Luke 1:46–55), both of which celebrate God’s humiliation of the rich and powerful and exaltation of the poor and lowly.

A town that was part of the northern boundary of the tribe of Zebulun’s traditional territorial allocation (Josh. 19:14). It sat on one of the major trading roads in Palestine. Though mentioned only once in the Bible, it is mentioned twice in the Amarna letters and once in the annals of Tiglath-pileser III.

(1) The son of Ephod, he was appointed representative of Manassah when the land of Canaan was allocated for each tribe (Num. 34:23). (2) One of the three sons of Ulla from the tribe of Asher (1 Chron. 7:39).

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

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

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

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

(1) King of the Ammonites. After Hanun’s father, Nahash, died, David sent messengers to comfort him because of Nahash’s relationship with David (2 Sam. 10:1–2; 1 Chron. 19:1–2), but Hanun did not trust David’s intentions, humiliated the messengers, and incited a war against Israel. Israel won and conquered the Ammonites (2 Sam. 12:30–31; 1 Chron. 20:1–3). (2) A man who helped rebuild the wall of Jerusalem in Nehemiah’s time with the aid of the inhabitants of Zanoah (Neh. 3:13). (3) The sixth son of Zalaph, he helped rebuild the wall of Jerusalem (Neh. 3:30). He possibly is the same person as in Neh. 3:13.

One of the sixteen towns allotted to the tribe of Issachar when Joshua allocated the land of Canaan to Israel (Josh. 19:19). Many scholars identify it with et-Taiyibeh, a site approximately ten miles southwest of the southern tip of the Sea of Galilee.

A priest whose family received the eighteenth of twenty-four lots when lots were drawn during the time of David to determine the order in which priests would minister in the temple (1 Chron. 24:15).

(1) A mountainous region, along with Aijalon and Shaalbim, inhabited by the Amo-rites. The tribe of Dan was unable to expel them from this region during the conquest of Canaan (Judg. 1:34–35). (2) The region through which Gideon returned after defeating Zebah and Zalmunnah. Gideon captured the two Midianite kings and routed their armies (Judg. 8:13). (3) Part of the name of the location of Joshua’s burial place. The name is given as “Timnath Heres” in Judg. 2:9. It was located near Mount Gaash in the territory of Ephraim. The town is also described as Timnath Serah in Josh. 19:50; 24:30.

One of the places to which Tiglath-pileser, king of Assyria (744–727 BC), deported the tribes of Israel living east of the Jordan River (1 Chron. 5:26). Identifying its location is problematic. Hara is named nowhere else in the Bible, including the similar passages of 2 Kings 17:6; 18:11. Furthermore, an analysis of the Hebrew and LXX texts of these three verses suggests that “Hara” may have appeared in 1 Chron. 5:26 due to a problem in textual transmission. If “Hara” is intended, it likely was a region near Halah, Habor, and the “river of Gozan” in northern Mesopotamia.

An encampment during Israel’s journey in the wilderness (Num. 33:24–25).

(1) A son of Terah and brother of Abraham. He was the father of Lot as well as of Milkah and Iskah. Haran died in Ur of the Chaldeans, where he was born, before Terah took his family and set out for Canaan (Gen. 11:26–32). (2) A son of Ephah, the concubine of Caleb, and father of Gazez (1 Chron. 2:46). (3) A son of Shimei (1 Chron. 23:9). See also Harran.

Five times within the lists of David’s mighty men the designation “Hararite” appears (2 Sam. 23:11, 33 [2×]; 1 Chron. 11:34–35). Those called “Hararites” presumably came from a place called “Harar” (note, e.g., the NLT of 2 Sam. 23:11: “Shammah son of Agee from Harar”); however, Harar is not mentioned directly in the Bible, and its location remains unknown. “Ararite” was apparently a Hebrew alternative spelling for “Hararite” (2 Sam. 23:33; see the NASB).

Five times within the lists of David’s mighty men the designation “Hararite” appears (2 Sam. 23:11, 33 [2×]; 1 Chron. 11:34–35). Those called “Hararites” presumably came from a place called “Harar” (note, e.g., the NLT of 2 Sam. 23:11: “Shammah son of Agee from Harar”); however, Harar is not mentioned directly in the Bible, and its location remains unknown. “Ararite” was apparently a Hebrew alternative spelling for “Hararite” (2 Sam. 23:33; see the NASB).

TEV rendering of the city of Riblah (Heb. hariblah) in Num. 34:11. See also Riblah.

One of King Xerxes (Ahasuerus) of Persia’s seven personal attendants, whom he commanded to bring Queen Vashti to his banquet (Esther 1:10). Because he worked with the harem, he was a eunuch. He also was in attendance when Haman’s plot against the Jewish people was uncovered (7:9).

One of King Xerxes (Ahasuerus) of Persia’s seven personal attendants, whom he commanded to bring Queen Vashti to his banquet (Esther 1:10). Because he worked with the harem, he was a eunuch. He also was in attendance when Haman’s plot against the Jewish people was uncovered (7:9).

Words that are difficult to interpret (Dan. 5:12 [KJV: “hard sentences”; NIV: “riddles”]) or to accept (Jesus’ teaching about eating his flesh and drinking his blood [John 6:60; cf. 14:24; 18:19). See also Acts 4:2, 18; 5:28; 17:16–21.

Words that are difficult to interpret (Dan. 5:12 [KJV: “hard sentences”; NIV: “riddles”]) or to accept (Jesus’ teaching about eating his flesh and drinking his blood [John 6:60; cf. 14:24; 18:19). See also Acts 4:2, 18; 5:28; 17:16–21.

Words that are difficult to interpret (Dan. 5:12 [KJV: “hard sentences”; NIV: “riddles”]) or to accept (Jesus’ teaching about eating his flesh and drinking his blood [John 6:60; cf. 14:24; 18:19). See also Acts 4:2, 18; 5:28; 17:16–21.

Hardness of heart describes a spiritual condition of active resistance against God and his ways. In a certain sense this kind of resistance is found in every human being ever since the fall in Gen. 3. Every human being inherits a sin nature from Adam (Rom. 5:12–14) that naturally and inevitably imparts a predisposition to sin. Daniel 5:20 associates a hardened heart with pride, a virtually universal shortcoming. However, hardness of heart often describes more unusual and significant opposition to God. Although it is still possible for God in his grace to rescue people in any spiritual condition, right up until the point of death, the more actively someone resists God, the less likely it is that God will intervene in that person’s life. At the same time, there is always hope, since even Jesus’ own disciples were described as having hard hearts (Mark 6:52). Yet, a deliberately hardened heart is always a serious offense against God because it involves “storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed” (Rom. 2:5).

One of the puzzles and mysteries of Scripture is that God himself is often described as being the one who hardens the hearts of various individuals. Pharaoh in the exodus story is a classic illustration. In Exod. 4:21 God says to Moses, “I will harden his [Pharaoh’s] heart so that he will not let the people go.” Other times, more ambiguous language is used, such as in 7:13, where “Pharaoh’s heart became hard.” Still other times, Pharaoh himself is described as being actively involved in this process, such as “when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and would not listen to Moses and Aaron” (8:15). The best way to understand this situation is to see hardness of heart as a combination of the active will of fallen human beings and the mysterious workings of a sovereign God. (Salvation and spiritual growth are similar spiritual realities in that both of these also involve a mysterious combination of God’s direct involvement in people’s lives and the necessity of their own human response.) Since the Bible so frequently warns against the danger of a hardened heart, there are clearly genuine opportunities for people to cry out to God for mercy and deliverance from this awful situation.

The Hebrew word ’arnebet in Lev. 11:6; Deut. 14:7 is variously translated “rabbit” (NIV) or “hare” (NRSV, ESV, RSV, NET, NLT). Like rabbits, to which they are related, hares appear to chew a cud, although they do not. Israel has several indigenous species.

A harem typically was a large group of women (wives, concubines, virgins, plus any small children) associated with a king; they lived together in a secluded, restricted area of his palace and often were attended by eunuchs. Harems were common in the royal courts of the ancient Near East, including in Israelite royal life (2 Sam. 3:7; 5:13; 12:11; 19:5; 21:11; 1 Kings 11:3–4; 1 Chron. 3:9; 2 Chron. 11:21; Ps. 45:14; Eccles. 2:8).

The book of Esther describes a lengthy process where the women of Xerxes’ court were gathered (2:3) in competition (2:4, 9), separated from family (2:11), and groomed (2:12), and, unless especially fortunate, had one night each with the king before being relegated to the second harem (2:13–14).

The son of Hur, the grandson of Caleb, and the father (or founder) of Beth Gader (1 Chron. 2:51). He was part of the tribe of Judah.

The forested region into which David and his men fled from King Saul after being instructed by the prophet Gad to leave the stronghold of Moab (1 Sam. 22:5). The exact location is unknown, though perhaps from the association with David’s sojourn in the cave of Adullam, some scholars identify Hereth with nearby Kharas, which is between Adullam and Giloh.

The father of Uzziel. Uzziel was a goldsmith who worked on repairing Jerusalem’s wall under the direction of Nehemiah (Neh. 3:8).

Tikvah’s father and Shallum’s grandfather (2 Kings 22:14). Shallum was the husband of the prophetess Huldah. She warned Josiah that the people had not followed God’s law, but because of Josiah’s responsiveness and humility, God would withhold judgment until Josiah died (22:15–20).

One of the ancestors of the temple servants (Nethinim) who returned to Jerusalem after the Babylonian captivity under the leadership of Zerubbabel in 539 BC or soon after (Ezra 2:51; Neh. 7:53). The fact that many of the names in the list of ancestors are foreign has led to the belief that they were originally prisoners of war who were pressed into service to perform menial tasks as they assisted the Levites.

(1) A descendant of Aaron who was made priest under King David (1 Chron. 24:8). He probably was the ancestor of one of the remnant families that came back from the exile with Zerubbabel (Ezra 2:32; Neh. 7:35, 42). His descendants continued in the line of priesthood (Ezra 2:39). Some of them were found guilty of marrying foreign women, so they divorced their wives and offered guilt offerings for that evil (Ezra 10:18–21). (2) An ancestor of Malkijah, who was one of the people who repaired the wall of Jerusalem (Neh. 3:11). (3) A priest who signed Nehemiah’s covenant to obey God’s law (Neh. 10:5). (4) A clan leader who signed Nehemiah’s covenant to obey God’s law (Neh. 10:27).

One of the “leaders of the people” who sealed the covenant with God following Ezra’s public reading of the law (Neh. 10:19). Hariph is also named in a record of the returnees under Zerubbabel (Neh. 7:24). The parallel text in Ezra 2:18 gives the name “Jorah.”

The term “harlot,” used especially in the KJV, RSV, and NASB, may refer either to cultic prostitutes who served in the temple or to women who provided sexual service for monetary gain. The NIV uses the term “harlot” only once, in Hosea 4:14, as a synonym for “prostitute.” See also Prostitution.

An alternate transliteration of a word in the Greek text of Rev. 16:16 (NIV: “Armageddon”). Literally, it means “mountain of Megiddo.” It is uncertain whether the term is being used literally in this verse or symbolically for a battlefield. See also Armageddon; Megiddo.

Speaking to the upper-class women of Samaria, God declares through Amos, “You will be cast out toward Harmon” (Amos 4:3). The identification of this place has been obscure since antiquity. Ancient versions suggest “Mount Remman” (LXX), “Armenia” (Symmachus), and “Hermon” (Vulgate). Because har is the Hebrew word for “mountain,” “Harmon” might indicate the mountain around the nation of Minni (mentioned in Jer. 51:27), Amana (mentioned in Song 4:8), Mannai (in Assyria), or Hermal (in Syria). The other option is to identify “Harmon” with one of several similar-sounding Hebrew common nouns, including “palace” (KJV), “fortress” (NLT), or “dung heap” (NEB). If Amos’s threat is one of foreign deportation of captives, then it is attractive to understand “Harmon” as a place name. On the other hand, if the text is referring to the removal of corpses from a city following a siege, the translation “dung heap” is preferable.

The desire to harmonize the differences between the canonical Gospels can be traced back to the second century, when Tatian (a second-century apologist) combined the four Gospels into one document known as the Diatessaron (Greek for “out of four”). This combined Gospel was used in the Syrian churches in the third and fourth centuries until it was replaced by the four canonical Gospels in the fifth century.

Material Common to More than One Gospel

All four Gospels portray Jesus as leading a group of disciples, preaching, healing, performing miracles, being crucified, and being raised from the dead. Matthew was written for a Jewish or Jewish Christian audience, reminding them that Jesus fulfills the Hebrew Scriptures. Mark was written for a Gentile audience, focusing more on narrative than on teaching and portraying Jesus as a man of miraculous, powerful action. Luke shows Jesus as one who is especially concerned for the poor and those on the fringes of society. John explains that Jesus, the eternal Word of God, is not a second god, but rather the one true God, sent by the Father to renew Israel.

People who are familiar with the content of the Gospel stories often confuse the information from different accounts. For example, there is actually no single story in the Bible about a “rich young ruler”: only Matthew describes the man as young (Matt. 19:20), and only Luke mentions that the man was a ruler (Luke 18:18).

Some material is found in all four Gospels, including information about John the Baptist, the miracle of the feeding of the five thousand, and the story of the crucifixion and the resurrection (although the individual accounts of the resurrection differ). Some material appears in three Gospels, especially in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. These three Gospels have therefore been labeled the “Synoptic Gospels” (syn = together, optic = view). Stories found in all three Synoptic Gospels include the transfiguration (Matt. 17:1–13; Mark 9:2–13; Luke 9:28–36); the healing of Jairus’s daughter and of a woman with a flow of blood (Matt. 9:18–26; Mark 5:21–43; Luke 8:41–56); and the rich young ruler (Matt. 19:16–30; Mark 10:17–31; Luke 18:18–30). The details do not agree in every respect in each account, but clearly they represent the same story and exhibit linguistic dependence on the same source(s).

A significant amount of material appears in two of the four canonical Gospels. Matthew and Mark have the story of a Syrophoenician woman (Matt. 15:21–28; Mark 7:24–30), and both Mark and Luke tell the story of a widow’s offering to the temple treasury (Mark 12:41–44; Luke 21:1–4). The most significant body of teachings and sayings found in two Gospels is the material shared by Matthew and Luke. Each of the Gospels contains material that does not appear in any other Gospel. Mark has the smallest amount of such material, John the largest.

The Gospel of John and the Synoptic Gospels

Based on a study of the material common to more than one Gospel, and the material unique to one Gospel, John’s Gospel usually is seen as distinct from the other three. The most likely explanation for this is that John was written later, with knowledge of the other Gospels, and therefore the author saw no need to repeat most of this material (except what was central to his purposes). Some of the distinctive features of John’s Gospel are the use of terminology such as “love,” “light,” “life,” “truth,” “abide,” “knowledge,” “world,” and the “I am” statements. Furthermore, certain Synoptic terms are either rare or absent—for example, “kingdom,” “demons,” “power,” “pity,” “gospel,” “preach,” “repent,” “parable,” “tax collector.” More so than the Synoptics, John is written from the vantage point of the resurrection and with the aid of hindsight as well as the Spirit. This is why the author of John’s Gospel does not refrain from adding commentary to Jesus’ words (e.g., 2:21–22; 7:39; 11:51–52; 12:16).

The Synoptic Gospels are more interrelated. In passages that appear in these three Gospels, there is often very close verbal agreement between them (e.g., the healing of the leper [Matt. 8:2; Mark 1:40–44; Luke 5:12–14]; the question of Jesus’ authority [Matt. 21:23–27; Mark 11:27–33; Luke 20:1–8]), implying a common source. In many sections that are found in all three Synoptic Gospels, two agree extensively and the third diverges (e.g., Matt. 20:24–28 and Mark 10:41–45 against Luke 22:24–27). When two Gospels agree and one disagrees, Matthew and Mark often agree against Luke, and Luke and Mark often agree against Matthew; but Matthew and Luke do not often agree against Mark and never do so in regard to the order of material. At other points, the Gospel accounts diverge quite significantly when referring to the same events. The infancy narratives in Matthew are quite different from those in Luke. The two accounts of the parable of the wedding banquet (Matt. 22:2–14; Luke 14:16–24) differ so significantly that it is difficult to decide whether they are two versions of the same parable or two different stories. Reports on the resurrection diverge across all four Gospels.

It is possible that these similarities and differences can be traced back to the oral presentation of the gospel. Apostolic preaching would have formed itself into set ways of retelling the events of Jesus’ ministry through repetition. These accounts may have been told originally in Aramaic before being translated into Greek to facilitate the Gentile mission. The authors of Matthew, Mark, and Luke could have been drawing from this common tradition in writing their Gospels. There is probably a degree of truth to this theory, but it cannot explain all the data. The theory does not account for similarities and differences in the order of events, nor does it explain why Matthew and Luke always return to Mark’s order after they deviate from it. A common oral tradition does not adequately explain similar editorial comments (e.g., cf. Matt. 24:15 with Mark 13:14), which suggest a common written source.

Some have argued that the apostles or others wrote records of the words of Jesus (memorabilia), which were collected and written down topically, from which the Synoptic Gospels were composed. As the church grew numerically and geographically, various collections of these memorabilia were made. Again, this is not beyond the realm of possibility; however, working against this theory is the complete absence of any reference to such records. Furthermore, as with the oral theory, it does not explain agreement in the order of material. It does, however, highlight the probability that the evangelists were using written sources.

Markan Priority and Q

On the assumption that the writers of the Synoptic Gospels employed a written source(s), several scholars have tried to reconstruct this original written Gospel from the material in the Synoptic Gospels. This document, which scholars call the Urevangelium (German for “original Gospel”), ended up bearing very close similarities with the Gospel of Mark. This is not surprising, since nearly all of Mark is repeated in Matthew and Luke. This led to the belief that Mark was the most primitive Synoptic Gospel, and that it was a common source for Matthew and Luke.

This belief in Markan priority, which has gained increasing popularity since the nineteenth century, has helped explain the similarities among the Synoptic Gospels. Traditionally, Matthew was thought to be the first Gospel to be written, hence the order of the Gospels in our NT. This belief in Matthean priority was upheld by several early church writers such as Augustine, who saw Mark as an abridgement of Matthew (Cons. 1.2). Augustine may have been more influenced by the traditional ordering of the Gospels than by an analysis of the Gospels themselves. Mark’s Gospel does not read like an abridgement; it is the shortest Gospel, but individual sections of it typically are longer and more detailed than in Matthew.

There are many reasons why the priority of Mark is probable. It is the shortest Gospel, containing 661 verses, whereas Matthew contains 1,068 and Luke contains 1,149. When their content is compared, 97.2 percent of Mark is paralleled in Matthew, and 88.4 percent of Mark is paralleled in Luke. It is easier to understand Matthew and Luke as using Mark and choosing to add additional material to it than to think of Mark as using Matthew, Luke, or both and deciding to omit material such as the birth narratives and the Sermon on the Mount. Mark has simpler Greek, which includes an extensive use of the present tense, redundancies (e.g., Mark 1:32: “that evening after sunset”; cf. Matt. 8:16: “when evening came”; Luke 4:40: “at sunset”), and various colloquialisms (e.g., the word for “mat” in Mark 2:4). Mark alone among the Gospels uses Aramaic terms such as abba (14:36), talitha koum (5:41), and ephphatha (7:34), although Matthew also mentions Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani (Matt. 27:46; Mark 15:34). It is easier to see how Luke and Matthew would have “improved” Mark than the reverse.

If we accept the priority of Mark, and Luke and Matthew’s dependence upon it, there are still the sections of Matthew and Luke that bear strong similarities with each other. From an analysis of the text of Matthew and Luke, it appears that these two evangelists did not know each other’s works. If one knew of the other’s work, why the divergence in some material such as the birth narratives? Alongside this, however, there are close similarities in other material: Matthew has 4,290 words that have parallels in Luke but not in Mark, and Luke has 3,559 words that have parallels in Matthew but not in Mark. The solution appears to be that Matthew and Luke were dealing with some material that they held in common, and that each of them also had other material that he drew on independently. The material held in common is commonly called “Q” (from the German word Quelle, meaning “source”); the material unique to Matthew is called “M” and that which is unique to Luke, “L.” Whether Q was a document is unknown, although it is more likely to be a collection of sources, as is also the case with M and L.

Many scholars argue that Q was a written rather than an oral source, based on the exact word parallels in the Greek text (e.g., Matt. 6:24 and Luke 16:13, where 27 of the 28 words are exactly the same). The presence of doublets (double accounts of the same incident) in Matthew and Luke may show dependence by the respective evangelists on both a Markan and a Q source (e.g., Luke 8:16; cf. Mark 4:21; Luke 11:33; cf. Matt. 5:15). Some scholars have tried to explain the sources geographically: Markan material originated in Rome, Q material in Antioch, M in Jerusalem, and L in Caesarea, but such speculations are far from proven.

Summary

Within all of this, in seeking to understand the harmony of the Gospels, it is important to be aware of what we do not know. Many of the solutions focus on a history behind the text to which we do not have access. Modern literary critics have tended to focus more on the text itself than its prehistory. There is merit in this because it affirms the priority of the text and allows the reader to understand how a part of the text functions within the larger literary unit. It also allows the evangelists to be more than collectors of sources, to have written distinctive theological accounts. Their different emphases may explain some of the differences between the Gospels. This approach, however, also has its dangers. Some who focus on the text over its original intent distance the text from the author’s purpose and therefore open the door for subjective interpretations that deny the difference between a correct and an incorrect reading of the text. It also raises the danger of reading an ancient text through modern eyes, losing sight of the original context.

The church has been well served by four Gospel traditions. The fact that esteem for the text has stopped overharmonization has been of great benefit, as the readers of the Gospels can appreciate various hues and emphases between the different accounts of the ministry of Jesus.

One of the sons of Zophah of the tribe of Asher (1 Chron. 7:36).

The term “harness” occurs three times as a verb in the context of restraints for oxen and horses (Job 39:10; Jer. 46:4; Mic. 1:13) and once for the human tongue (Ps. 50:19). In the KJV the term is also used as a synonym for armor (1 Kings 20:11; 22:34; 2 Chron. 9:24; 18:33).

A valley and spring in northern Israel where Gideon assembled his troops before the battle recorded in Judg. 7. The narrow Harod Valley connects the Jezreel Valley and the Jordan Rift Valley between the cities of Jezreel and Beth Shan. This fertile valley boasts several springs, including the spring of Harod (7:1). Here, before Gideon’s army went into battle and defeated the Midianites, God reduced their numbers based on how the soldiers drank from the spring. After the battle, the Midianites fled southeast down the Harod Valley on their way back across the Jordan River. Years later, King Saul assembled his army in the same vicinity before his final, deadly battle with the Philistines (1 Sam. 28; 31).

Two of David’s mighty men, Shammah and Elika, were from Harod. The lists of David’s mighty men refer to Shammah the Harodite (2 Sam. 23:25) and Shammoth the Harorite (1 Chron. 11:27), the latter likely being a textual corruption.

The son of Shobal, progenitor of Kiriath Jearim. The name in Hebrew means “the seer.” The same Hebrew word, ro’eh, is used by Hagar when she names God ’el ro’i, meaning “God who sees me” (Gen. 16:13). The reading “Haroeh” (1 Chron. 2:52) may be corrupt, and many commentators choose to read it as “Reaiah,” based on the similar Calebite genealogy in 1 Chron. 4:2.

Two of David’s mighty men, Shammah and Elika, were from Harod. The lists of David’s mighty men refer to Shammah the Harodite (2 Sam. 23:25) and Shammoth the Harorite (1 Chron. 11:27), the latter likely being a textual corruption.

A place in northern Canaan that was home to Sisera (Judg. 4:2), the general who led the Canaanite coalition against the Israelite forces under Deborah and Barak. Sisera gathered the Canaanite chariotry from Harosheth Haggoyim at the Kishon River (4:13), which drains the central Jezreel Valley. They set out to cross toward Mount Tabor on the north, where the Israelite troops had mustered. After the Canaanite attack failed, the Israelites pursued the Canaanites back to Harosheth Haggoyim (4:16). This would seem to be located in the southern Jezreel Valley, across the Kishon from Mount Tabor. However, the name (which means “Harosheth of the Gentiles/Nations”) does not appear in any ancient sources outside of Judg. 4, and no suitable archaeological sites have been found in the vicinity. Some suggest that it was located in the narrow valley leading from the Jezreel toward the Mediterranean. Others argue that it was not a site but rather the region on the southern edge of the Jezreel Valley controlled by non-Israelites.

A place in northern Canaan that was home to Sisera (Judg. 4:2), the general who led the Canaanite coalition against the Israelite forces under Deborah and Barak. Sisera gathered the Canaanite chariotry from Harosheth Haggoyim at the Kishon River (4:13), which drains the central Jezreel Valley. They set out to cross toward Mount Tabor on the north, where the Israelite troops had mustered. After the Canaanite attack failed, the Israelites pursued the Canaanites back to Harosheth Haggoyim (4:16). This would seem to be located in the southern Jezreel Valley, across the Kishon from Mount Tabor. However, the name (which means “Harosheth of the Gentiles/Nations”) does not appear in any ancient sources outside of Judg. 4, and no suitable archaeological sites have been found in the vicinity. Some suggest that it was located in the narrow valley leading from the Jezreel toward the Mediterranean. Others argue that it was not a site but rather the region on the southern edge of the Jezreel Valley controlled by non-Israelites.

A place in northern Canaan that was home to Sisera (Judg. 4:2), the general who led the Canaanite coalition against the Israelite forces under Deborah and Barak. Sisera gathered the Canaanite chariotry from Harosheth Haggoyim at the Kishon River (4:13), which drains the central Jezreel Valley. They set out to cross toward Mount Tabor on the north, where the Israelite troops had mustered. After the Canaanite attack failed, the Israelites pursued the Canaanites back to Harosheth Haggoyim (4:16). This would seem to be located in the southern Jezreel Valley, across the Kishon from Mount Tabor. However, the name (which means “Harosheth of the Gentiles/Nations”) does not appear in any ancient sources outside of Judg. 4, and no suitable archaeological sites have been found in the vicinity. Some suggest that it was located in the narrow valley leading from the Jezreel toward the Mediterranean. Others argue that it was not a site but rather the region on the southern edge of the Jezreel Valley controlled by non-Israelites.

Found only in Job 41:7, “harpoon” refers to the barb or spear that pierces the skin of the powerful Leviathan (perhaps a crocodile or some mythical creature). The term “harpoons” parallels “fishing spears” in the second half of the verse.

A city or region approximately sixty miles north of the confluence of the Euphrates and the Balikh rivers. Abraham moved from Ur to Harran en route to Canaan (Gen. 11:26–12:5). There, Eliezer acquired Rebekah as a wife for Isaac (24:1–67), and Jacob later resided, marrying Leah and Rachel (29:1–30).

An agricultural implement designed to break up dirt clods and soften soil before the sowing of seed or to cover seeds after they have been sown. Biblical references are to the object itself (2 Sam. 12:31; 1 Chron. 20:3; NIV: “iron picks”) as well as to the verb “harrowing,” meaning the use of a harrow in a field (Job 39:10; Isa. 28:24; Hos. 10:11 NRSV).

(1) One of the ancestors of the temple servants (Nethinim) who returned to Jerusalem after the Babylonian captivity under the leadership of Zerubbabel in 539 BC or soon after (Ezra 2:52; Neh. 7:54). The fact that many of the names in the list of ancestors are foreign has led to the belief that they were originally prisoners of war who were pressed into service to perform menial tasks as they assisted the Levites. (2) A Babylonian site where some exiles lived (Ezra 2:59). The clan of Harsha’s name may be associated with this place name.

The father of Aharhel, a Judahite clan leader (1 Chron. 4:8).

The father of Jedaiah, who made repairs to the wall of Jerusalem opposite his house under the direction of Nehemiah (Neh. 3:10).

Shephatiah the Haruphite was an ambidextrous man who, although related to Saul, defected from him to serve with David (1 Chron. 12:5). The designation “Haruphite” implies that he was from the clan of Hariph (Neh. 7:24; 10:19) or of Hareph (1 Chron. 2:51) or from an unknown town by either name.

The father of Meshullemeth, who became the wife of Manasseh, king of Judah, and the mother of Manasseh’s royal successor, Amon. Haruz was from Jotbah (2 Kings 21:19).

The harvest was a major event on the yearly calendar of Israel’s agrarian society (Lev. 25:11; Judg. 15:1; Ruth 1:22; 2 Sam. 21:9–10). Life was dependent on the harvest. As a result, God set certain rules with respect to the harvest to help the Israelites keep proper priorities. Every seven years and every fiftieth year, the people were to give the land a rest (Exod. 23:10; Lev. 25:20–22). The people were to rest on the Sabbath, even during the harvesttime (Exod. 34:21). Some portions of crops were to be left in the field so that the poor might have food (Lev. 19:9; 23:22; Deut. 24:21). The people were to acknowledge God as the source of the harvest by offering the first of the produce (Lev. 23:10). Celebrating the harvest was commanded (Exod. 23:16; Deut. 16:15; Isa. 9:3). Planning for the harvest was a mark of wisdom (Prov. 6:8; 10:5; 20:4). Even as a good harvest was the blessing of God (Ps. 67:6; Isa. 62:9), so a bad harvest was a curse from God and the plight of a fool (1 Sam. 12:17; Job 5:5; Prov. 26:1; Isa. 18:4–5; Jer. 8:13, 20; Joel 3:12; Mic. 6:15). Failure to acknowledge God for the harvest was a sin (Jer. 5:24).

The harvest is often used in Scripture as an analogy. The prophets talk about the negative harvest of idolatry (Isa. 17:11). Israel is called the firstfruits of God’s harvest (Jer. 2:3). Hosea uses the idea of harvest to indicate that God’s people have a future (Hos. 6:11). In the Gospels, the harvest is used as an analogy for those needing to hear the good news (Matt. 9:37–38), for the end times (Matt. 13:24–30; Rev. 14:15), and for a lesson about unfaithful leadership (Matt. 21:33–46; 25:24). In the remainder of the NT, the harvest analogy usually refers to Christian growth and salvation (Rom. 1:13; 1 Cor. 9:10–11; 2 Cor. 9:10; Gal. 6:9; Heb. 12:11; James 3:18).

A son of Zerubbabel, a descendant of King Jehoiachin (1 Chron. 3:20).

According to Neh. 3:3, the men who rebuilt the Fish Gate during Nehemiah’s effort to reconstruct the wall of Jerusalem were the “sons of Hassenaah.” The name is likely associated with Senaah (Ezra 2:35; Neh. 7:38), one of the groups of returnees from the exile; in Hebrew, adding the definite article to “Senaah” results in “Hassenaah.” “Hassenaah” may have been the name of a person, a place, or both.

(1) A Levite from the family of Merari. He was the son of Amaziah and the father of Malluk, and his descendant Ethan was a priestly musician in the time of King David (1 Chron. 6:45). (2) A Levite from the family of Merari. He was the son of Bunni and the father of Azrikam, and his descendant Shemaiah was among the first to resettle in Jerusalem after the exile (1 Chron. 9:14; Neh. 11:15). (3) A priestly musician during David’s reign. He played under the supervision of his father, Jeduthun, one of the three chief musicians under King David’s direct oversight (1 Chron. 25:3, 19). (4) The leader of the Hebronite family charged with the religious and governmental affairs west of the Jordan River during David’s reign (1 Chron. 26:30). (5) The son of Kemuel, he was an officer over the tribe of Levi (1 Chron. 27:17). (6) A Levitical chief who participated in the great Passover of King Josiah (2 Chron. 35:9).

(7) A Levite from the family of Merari, he journeyed with Ezra from Babylon to Jerusalem and assisted in the transportation of gold and silver for the temple (Ezra 8:19, 24). (8) The ruler of the half-district of Keilah. He helped Nehemiah rebuild the wall of Jerusalem (Neh. 3:17). He may be the same person as in Ezra 8:19, 24–25. (9) A Levite leader listed among those who signed the covenant of national renewal with Nehemiah (Neh. 10:11; 12:24). He may be the same person as in Ezra 8:19, 24. (10) The son of Mattaniah and the father of Bani, his grandson Uzzi was the chief officer of the Levites in Jerusalem under Nehemiah’s governance (Neh. 11:22). (11) The head of the priestly family of Hilkiah when Joiakim was high priest (Neh. 12:21).

One of the “leaders of the people” who sealed the covenant with God following Ezra’s public reading of the law (Neh. 10:25).

(1) The father of Hattush, who worked on repairing the wall of Jerusalem under the leadership of Nehemiah (Neh. 3:10). (2) One of the Levites who participated in the ceremony of confession and repentance after Ezra’s reading of the law (Neh. 9:5).

(1) The father of Hattush, who worked on repairing the wall of Jerusalem under the leadership of Nehemiah (Neh. 3:10). (2) One of the Levites who participated in the ceremony of confession and repentance after Ezra’s reading of the law (Neh. 9:5).

A man who was part of the group that stood on the platform with Ezra (on his left side) when he read the Torah to the people after returning from the Babylonian captivity. It is likely, though not certain, that he was a Levite (Neh. 8:4).

A Gizonite whose sons were part of David’s thirty mighty men (1 Chron. 11:34). In a parallel passage, 2 Sam. 23:32, his name is recorded as “Jashen.”

One of the places where the Israelites camped during their wanderings through the wilderness (Num. 33:29–30). The exact location is unknown.

Several contemporaries of Ezra and Nehemiah have this name, which the KJV sometimes spells as “Hashub.” It is difficult to determine how many distinct persons there are. (1) The father of Shemaiah, a Levite who settled in Jerusalem after the return from exile (Neh. 11:15; 1 Chron. 9:14). (2) One of the rebuilders of Jerusalem in the days of Nehemiah (Neh. 3:11, 23). (3) One of the “leaders of the people” who sealed the covenant with God following Ezra’s public reading of the law (Neh. 10:23).

A son of Zerubbabel, a descendant of King Jehoiachin (1 Chron. 3:20).

The head of a clan that was part of the early return to Judah from Babylonian captivity in 539 BC or soon after (Ezra 2:19; Neh. 7:22). Seven members of this clan were later found guilty of intermarriage (Ezra 10:33). Hashum is also listed as one who stood by Ezra during the reading of the law (Neh. 8:4) and who sealed the covenant (10:18).

One of the ancestors of the temple servants (Nethinim) who returned to Jerusalem after the Babylonian captivity under the leadership of Zerubbabel in 539 BC or soon after (Ezra 2:43; Neh. 7:46). The fact that many of the names in the list of ancestors are foreign has led to the belief that they were originally prisoners of war who were pressed into service to perform menial tasks as they assisted the Levites.

A man described as the “keeper of the wardrobe,” probably a royal official. His granddaughter-in-law was Huldah the prophet (2 Chron. 34:22). In the parallel text, 2 Kings 22:14, the same person is called “Harhas.”

According to Neh. 3:3, the men who rebuilt the Fish Gate during Nehemiah’s effort to reconstruct the wall of Jerusalem were the “sons of Hassenaah.” The name is likely associated with Senaah (Ezra 2:35; Neh. 7:38), one of the groups of returnees from the exile; in Hebrew, adding the definite article to “Senaah” results in “Hassenaah.” “Hassenaah” may have been the name of a person, a place, or both.

Two individuals are identified as being sons of fathers named Hassenuah (1 Chron. 9:7; Neh. 11:9). “Hassenaah” (Neh. 3:3) seems to be a variant spelling and may refer to the same family.

Several contemporaries of Ezra and Nehemiah have this name, which the KJV sometimes spells as “Hashub.” It is difficult to determine how many distinct persons there are. (1) The father of Shemaiah, a Levite who settled in Jerusalem after the return from exile (Neh. 11:15; 1 Chron. 9:14). (2) One of the rebuilders of Jerusalem in the days of Nehemiah (Neh. 3:11, 23). (3) One of the “leaders of the people” who sealed the covenant with God following Ezra’s public reading of the law (Neh. 10:23).

An ancestor of a family that belonged to the “servants of Solomon” (Ezra 2:55; Neh. 7:57 [“Sophereth”]) and returned with Zerubbabel in 539 BC or soon after. Little is known about this group except that it likely performed menial functions at the temple, as it is grouped with the “temple servants” (see Nethinim). The name of the group suggests that it was formed during the period of Solomon, though it could have been so named because Solomon built the first temple.

One of the ancestors of the temple servants (Nethinim) who returned to Jerusalem after the Babylonian captivity under the leadership of Zerubbabel in 539 BC or soon after (Ezra 2:43; Neh. 7:46). The fact that many of the names in the list of ancestors are foreign has led to the belief that they were originally prisoners of war who were pressed into service to perform menial tasks as they assisted the Levites.

In Dan. 3:21 the KJV renders the Aramaic word karbela’ as “hat,” referring to the head covering of Daniel’s three friends as they are thrown in the furnace (NIV: “turban”; NASB: “cap”).

A eunuch who served the Persian king Xerxes (Ahasuerus) and was assigned to Queen Esther. Esther used Hathak as a messenger and intermediary to communicate with her cousin Mordecai when Mordecai was trying to inform Esther about Haman’s decree of extermination against the Jews and motivate her to take action (Esther 4:5–10).

A feeling of animosity, a disposition toward hostility, rejection, or negative favoritism.

Hate is as old as the conflict between Cain and Abel or as the rebellion of Satan. Many stories involve hatred and animosity between people (e.g., Gen. 37:4; 2 Sam. 13:22). Beside humans hating each other, people hate God and that which is morally upright (Exod. 20:5; Deut. 5:9; 7:10; 32:41; Pss. 68:1; 81:15; 120:6). It is correct, however, to hate sin (Pss. 97:10; 101:3; Prov. 8:13), as God does (Ps. 5:6; Prov. 6:16–19; Isa. 61:8; Rev. 2:6), though he takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezek. 18:23; 33:11). The two great commandments oppose the tendency to hate by calling us to love God wholly and love our neighbor as ourselves (Lev. 19:18; Deut. 6:5; 10:12; Matt. 22:37; Mark 12:33; Luke 10:27). The reverse is also commanded: we should not hate our neighbor (Lev. 19:17) nor even hate our enemy, but rather do good and pray for our enemy (Exod. 23:4–5; Prov. 25:21; Matt. 5:44; Luke 6:27; cf. Deut. 10:19). Hateful actions are not necessarily motivated by hateful feelings, as a father who does not give needed punishment to his son is said to treat him with hatred (Prov. 13:24).

With regard to a hate crime, the main issue was intent—that is, whether an accident had occurred or whether a murder had been committed deliberately, “with malice aforethought” (Num. 35:20). Hate was a criterion of intent and had to be established by multiple witnesses for the two parties involved. Having hate did not garner greater punishment or make it a worse crime; hatred signified that it was a crime because it was intentional (Deut. 4:42; 19:4, 6, 11; Josh. 20:5).

With regard to marriage, in a polygamous marriage there was a danger of preferential treatment: a loved wife and a hated wife. The law forbids reducing the care of one wife in favor of another (Exod. 21:10) and protects the rights of the firstborn son even if he is born to the hated wife (Deut. 21:15–17). Hatred may be expressed by either party withholding conjugal relations. This probably lies behind the description in Gen. 29:31 of Jacob hating Leah (some translations say “unloved”).

Rejection, favoritism, or preference may be called “hate,” as in the case of a nonpreferred wife in a polygamous marriage, in not choosing Esau to continue the covenant line (Mal. 1:2–3; Rom. 9:13), or in not having a greater love for Christ than anything else (Matt. 6:24; Luke 14:26; John 12:25).

A eunuch who served the Persian king Xerxes (Ahasuerus) and was assigned to Queen Esther. Esther used Hathak as a messenger and intermediary to communicate with her cousin Mordecai when Mordecai was trying to inform Esther about Haman’s decree of extermination against the Jews and motivate her to take action (Esther 4:5–10).

A eunuch who served the Persian king Xerxes (Ahasuerus) and was assigned to Queen Esther. Esther used Hathak as a messenger and intermediary to communicate with her cousin Mordecai when Mordecai was trying to inform Esther about Haman’s decree of extermination against the Jews and motivate her to take action (Esther 4:5–10).

One of the two sons of Othniel (1 Chron. 4:13).

One of the ancestors of the temple servants (Nethinim) who returned to Jerusalem after the Babylonian captivity under the leadership of Zerubbabel in 539 BC or soon after (Ezra 2:54; Neh. 7:56). The fact that many of the names in the list of ancestors are foreign has led to the belief that they were originally prisoners of war who were pressed into service to perform menial tasks as they assisted the Levites.

A priestly gatekeeper at the time of the early postexilic period (Ezra 2:42; Neh. 7:45).

A feeling of animosity, a disposition toward hostility, rejection, or negative favoritism.

Hate is as old as the conflict between Cain and Abel or as the rebellion of Satan. Many stories involve hatred and animosity between people (e.g., Gen. 37:4; 2 Sam. 13:22). Beside humans hating each other, people hate God and that which is morally upright (Exod. 20:5; Deut. 5:9; 7:10; 32:41; Pss. 68:1; 81:15; 120:6). It is correct, however, to hate sin (Pss. 97:10; 101:3; Prov. 8:13), as God does (Ps. 5:6; Prov. 6:16–19; Isa. 61:8; Rev. 2:6), though he takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezek. 18:23; 33:11). The two great commandments oppose the tendency to hate by calling us to love God wholly and love our neighbor as ourselves (Lev. 19:18; Deut. 6:5; 10:12; Matt. 22:37; Mark 12:33; Luke 10:27). The reverse is also commanded: we should not hate our neighbor (Lev. 19:17) nor even hate our enemy, but rather do good and pray for our enemy (Exod. 23:4–5; Prov. 25:21; Matt. 5:44; Luke 6:27; cf. Deut. 10:19). Hateful actions are not necessarily motivated by hateful feelings, as a father who does not give needed punishment to his son is said to treat him with hatred (Prov. 13:24).

With regard to a hate crime, the main issue was intent—that is, whether an accident had occurred or whether a murder had been committed deliberately, “with malice aforethought” (Num. 35:20). Hate was a criterion of intent and had to be established by multiple witnesses for the two parties involved. Having hate did not garner greater punishment or make it a worse crime; hatred signified that it was a crime because it was intentional (Deut. 4:42; 19:4, 6, 11; Josh. 20:5).

With regard to marriage, in a polygamous marriage there was a danger of preferential treatment: a loved wife and a hated wife. The law forbids reducing the care of one wife in favor of another (Exod. 21:10) and protects the rights of the firstborn son even if he is born to the hated wife (Deut. 21:15–17). Hatred may be expressed by either party withholding conjugal relations. This probably lies behind the description in Gen. 29:31 of Jacob hating Leah (some translations say “unloved”).

Rejection, favoritism, or preference may be called “hate,” as in the case of a nonpreferred wife in a polygamous marriage, in not choosing Esau to continue the covenant line (Mal. 1:2–3; Rom. 9:13), or in not having a greater love for Christ than anything else (Matt. 6:24; Luke 14:26; John 12:25).

An ancestor of a family that belonged to the “servants of Solomon” (Ezra 2:57; Neh. 7:59) and that returned with Zerubbabel in 539 BC or soon after. Little is known about this group except that it likely performed menial functions at the temple, as it is grouped with the “temple servants” (see Nethinim). The name of the group suggests that it was formed during the period of Solomon, though it could have been so named because Solomon built the first temple.

(1) A descendant of Zerubbabel, and a son of Shemaiah or Shekaniah (1 Chron. 3:22). Irregularities in the text might indicate that Hattush was the brother of Shemaiah and son of Shekaniah (cf. Ezra 8:2; 1 Esd. 8:29). He was the head of David’s descendants who accompanied Ezra from Babylon. (2) The son of Hashabneiah who helped rebuild Jerusalem during Nehemiah’s time (Neh. 3:10). (3) A leader who signed the covenant of renewal during the days of Ezra (Neh. 10:4). (4) A priest who accompanied Zerubbabel and Shealtiel in returning to Jerusalem (Neh. 12:2), probably the same person as Neh. 10:4.

An area of land located east of the Jordan River and north of the Yarmuk River, encompassing the biblical territory of Bashan. It was one of the eastern boundary markers for the territory of Israel mentioned in Ezek. 47:16, 18. Hauran was mentioned as part of one of the campaigns of Shalmaneser III and later was conquered by Tiglath-pileser III. It is also mentioned as part of the campaign of Ashurbanipal. After the exile, the Jews, the Greeks, and the Nabateans vied for control of this territory. It was subjugated by the Maccabeans in the second century BC before coming under Roman control. Today the area is known as Jebel ed-Druze.

A port or harbor that allows safe anchorage for boats (Gen. 49:13; cf. Ps. 107:30). See also Fair Havens.

(1) A son of Cush (Gen. 10:7; 1 Chron. 1:9). (2) A son of Joktan, descendant of Shem (Gen. 10:29; 1 Chron. 1:23). The name has been related to the name of certain Arabic tribes. (3) A land surrounded by the Pishon River and used to describe the location of the garden of Eden. It is characterized by its abundance of fine gold, bdellium, and onyx stones (Gen. 2:11–12). Although the passage is somewhat enigmatic, it appears that Havilah lies outside the garden. Havilah is used elsewhere in connection with Shur to describe the boundaries of the land of the Ishmaelites (Gen. 25:18) and the geographical extent of Saul’s victory over the Amalekites (1 Sam. 15:7). Havilah lies outside the land of Israel. It likely refers to some part of Arabia or to Arabia in general, since this region is characterized by gold, bdellium, and onyx stones and is associated with the Ishmaelites; its name may be associated with the name of a region in southwest Arabia.

A group of Amorite villages captured by the Manassehite Jair (Num. 32:41; Deut. 3:14) during the Israelite conquest of the land east of the Jordan River. The name means “the villages of (the person) Jair.” These villages were located in the Bashan region east of Galilee. Moses granted these villages to the half-tribe of Manasseh (Deut. 3:13). Curiously, the sons of a later Gileadite judge, also named “Jair,” are said to have controlled thirty towns in Gilead, which are also called “Havvoth Jair” (Judg. 10:4), apparently implying a connection between the judge Jair and the naming of the region.

The number of villages that comprised the region appears to fluctuate somewhat throughout Israelite history. Some biblical texts (Deut. 3:13–14; Josh. 13:30; 1 Kings 4:13) indicate that Havoth Jair consisted of sixty villages, while Judg. 10:4 seems to view thirty villages comprising the region (associated with the thirty sons of the Gileadite judge). Alternatively, 1 Chron. 2:22 indicates that Jair comprised twenty-three villages, which together with the surrounding villages of Kenath total sixty villages (1 Chron. 2:23). This may be due to differing traditions as to which villages were to be included within the region proper, or it may indicate fluctuations in population and/or actual changes in territorial boundaries throughout Israelite history.

Hawks, like other birds of prey, are unclean (Lev. 11:16; Deut. 14:15). Numerous species of hawk and falcon exist in Israel, some being migrants (Job 39:26). It is uncertain which Hebrew word refers to which.

The king of Damascus around 842–800 BC, Hazael was a high officer of Ben-Hadad before he seized the throne by assassinating him (2 Kings 8:7–15). Although Hazael was a usurper, whom Assyrians called “the son of a nobody,” his reign brought the kingdom of Damascus to the zenith of its power. The Israelites, however, remembered him as the perpetrator of horrible cruelties against them (2 Kings 8:12). Thus, later, when Amos predicted vengeance upon Damascus, he foretold that fire would consume “the house of Hazael” (Amos 1:4).

In 2 Kings 9:15–17 Hazael appears as the ally of Yahwism against Baalism. He indirectly aided Jehu’s coup against Joram (9:14–15). After successfully withstanding an attack by Shalmaneser III (841 BC), he turned to menace the kingdoms of both Israel and Judah throughout the reigns of Jehu and Jehoahaz. He took the whole of the Transjordan south up to the Moabite frontier (10:32–33) and reduced the Israelite army to a minimum (13:7). Joash king of Judah had to bribe Hazael with the treasures stripped from the temple and the palace to save Jerusalem (12:17–18). After Hazael’s death, he was succeeded by his son Ben-Hadad III, which prompted Jehoash son of Jehoahaz to take back the land Hazael had taken from his father (13:24–25). Hazael’s empire came to an end when the Assyrian king Adad-nirari III conquered Damascus in 796 BC.

An ancestor of Maaseiah and a resident of Jerusalem during the time of Ezra and Nehemiah (Neh. 11:5).

A village listed in Num. 34:4 as part of the southern boundary of Canaan, southeast of Kadesh Barnea. It is now associated with the modern location of ‘Ain Qedeis in Egypt.

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.

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.

One of the towns along the southern border of the territory of Judah (Josh. 15:27). The exact location is unknown but may be near Beersheba.

Part of the ideal northeastern boundary of Israel, on the border of Hauran in Syria (Ezek. 47:16). The location is unknown, but on the basis of the context it has been suggested that the text should read “Hazar Enan” (Ezek. 47:17).

Listed on the southern border of the territory of Judah (Josh. 15:28), it is also listed in the tribal inheritance of Simeon (Josh. 19:3; 1 Chron. 4:28). Some of the people of Judah lived there after the return from exile (Neh. 11:27).

Listed in the inheritance of Simeon (Josh. 19:5 in fem. sg., susah; 1 Chron. 4:31 in masc. pl., susim). Most of Simeon’s allotment is also listed within the territory of Judah, so in Josh. 15:31 “Sansannah” may be an older name associated with the town that perhaps was changed at the time of Solomon. Its modern location is not known for certain but may be at either Khirbet esh-Shamsaniyat or Sbalat Abu Susein, twenty miles west of Beersheba.

Listed in the inheritance of Simeon (Josh. 19:5 in fem. sg., susah; 1 Chron. 4:31 in masc. pl., susim). Most of Simeon’s allotment is also listed within the territory of Judah, so in Josh. 15:31 “Sansannah” may be an older name associated with the town that perhaps was changed at the time of Solomon. Its modern location is not known for certain but may be at either Khirbet esh-Shamsaniyat or Sbalat Abu Susein, twenty miles west of Beersheba.

A son of Joktan in the Table of Nations (Gen. 10:26; 1 Chron. 1:20). Found in the line of Shem, Joktan was a son of Eber and an ancestor of South Arabian tribes.

An Amorite village defeated by Kedorlaomer and his allies (Gen. 14:7). In the narrative it appears to be between “En Mishpat (that is, Kadesh)” and “the Valley of Siddim.” If so, this site may be identified with the Tamar in Ezek. 47:19; 48:28 and would be the modern location of Ain Husb (twenty miles south of the Dead Sea). According to 2 Chron. 20:2, an army of Moabites and Ammonites passed through it on the way to attack Jehoshaphat. Here, Hazezon Tamar is identified as En Gedi (on the west side of the Dead Sea). If both of these designations are correct, it is unlikely that both texts refer to the same location. See also En Gedi; Tamar.

In Gen. 30:37 the KJV translates the Hebrew word luz as “hazel,” referring to a nut tree that is more precisely identified as an almond tree (so NIV, NRSV).

The daughter of Etam, and the sister of Jezreel, Ishma, and Idbash, listed in the genealogy of Judah (1 Chron. 4:3). The exact relationship of Etam to Judah is unclear due to a textual ambiguity. The Hebrew reads “these the father of Etam.” It has been suggested that something was omitted by a copyist between “these” and “father.” If so, then it is possible that Etam may not have been her father, but rather a brother. Since many of the other names are place names, it has also been suggested that “Hazzelelponi” is the place name of an unknown location.

Part of the ideal northeastern boundary of Israel, on the border of Hauran in Syria (Ezek. 47:16). The location is unknown, but on the basis of the context it has been suggested that the text should read “Hazar Enan” (Ezek. 47:17).

Part of the ideal northeastern boundary of Israel, on the border of Hauran in Syria (Ezek. 47:16). The location is unknown, but on the basis of the context it has been suggested that the text should read “Hazar Enan” (Ezek. 47:17).

In Deut. 2:23 the KJV translates the Hebrew word khatserim as a place name, “Hazerim,” whereas more-recent translations interpret it as a common noun, “settlements” (NRSV) or “villages” (NIV). See also Hazar.

Third stop for the Israelites on the wilderness journey after leaving Mount Sinai (Num. 11:35; 12:16; 33:17–18). Here, Miriam and Aaron confronted Moses regarding his Cushite wife (12:1). Their attack seemed to be broader than the ethnicity of Moses’ wife, deriving from their jealousy that God spoke only to Moses (12:2). God heard their complaint and called them to the tent of meeting, where he appeared at the entrance in a pillar of cloud and vindicated his servant Moses, reminding them that he spoke with Moses “face to face.” Subsequently, in judgment, God’s presence left the tent of meeting, and Miriam became leprous. Upon Moses’ intercession, God restored her to health one week later.

An Amorite village defeated by Kedorlaomer and his allies (Gen. 14:7). In the narrative it appears to be between “En Mishpat (that is, Kadesh)” and “the Valley of Siddim.” If so, this site may be identified with the Tamar in Ezek. 47:19; 48:28 and would be the modern location of Ain Husb (twenty miles south of the Dead Sea). According to 2 Chron. 20:2, an army of Moabites and Ammonites passed through it on the way to attack Jehoshaphat. Here, Hazezon Tamar is identified as En Gedi (on the west side of the Dead Sea). If both of these designations are correct, it is unlikely that both texts refer to the same location. See also En Gedi; Tamar.

A Levite in the Gershonite group during the time of David and/or Solomon, he was one of the three sons of Shimei (1 Chron. 23:9).

The fifth son of Milkah and Nahor (Gen. 22:22).

(1) From both a biblical and an archaeological point of view, the most important place named “Hazor” was at modern Tell el-Qedah, a site in the Huleh Valley some eight miles north of the Sea of Galilee. The site was occupied beginning in the third millennium BC (Early Bronze Age). The Middle Bronze Age city was destroyed by burning, but the site was rebuilt in the Late Bronze Age (sixteenth to thirteenth centuries BC) and flourished as a Canaanite city-state. This city was destroyed in the thirteenth century BC in an event that some have correlated to the conquest of the land under Joshua (Josh. 11:13 [see below]). The city was built up and fortified again during the period of the Israelite monarchy, under Solomon (1 Kings 9:15) and again under the northern Omride dynasty. Following the destruction by the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III (2 Kings 15:29), the site served as an Assyrian garrison before finally being abandoned in the fourth century BC.

Hazor figures prominently in several biblical accounts and, consequently, in several important debates concerning the Bible and history. As noted above, Hazor is among several cities that Joshua was supposed to have conquered (Josh. 11:13). In the case of Hazor, the destruction of the city by burning is noted as an exceptional circumstance. The king of Hazor was named “Jabin” (Josh. 11:1), a name that appears later in the time of Deborah and Barak, when Hazor was once again a center of Canaanite power (Judg. 4:2, 17) and hostile toward the Israelites. Although archaeological discoveries do not uniformly corroborate the biblical descriptions of the overall program of Joshua’s conquest (Ai and Jericho are notable problems), the evidence at Hazor of a massive destruction by fire in the late thirteenth century BC suggests a historical underpinning for Josh. 11:13. In terms of broader biblical chronology, this correlation presupposes a late date for the exodus.

Hazor once again rises to prominence in biblical history in the war waged by Deborah and Barak, when it is again ruled by a powerful Canaanite king named “Jabin” (Judg. 4:2 [ostensibly in the Iron Age I period, 1200–1000 BC]). The Bible gives no account of the resurgence of Hazor following its destruction by Joshua, though the name of its ruler and his Canaanite identity suggest a certain degree of continuity between the city that Joshua utterly destroyed and the foe of Deborah. As for the archaeological evidence, there is none for a fortified royal Canaanite city of the type implied in Judges. Following the destruction of the Late Bronze Age city, there was little activity until the tenth century BC.

The tenth century BC saw the construction of massive fortifications at Hazor, including a large gate. Following the biblical account, this evidence belongs to Solomon’s program of building throughout the country and corresponds to the identification of Hazor as one of several regional administrative capitals (1 Kings 9:15). This statement has been contested by those who would date the rise of the Israelite state to the time of the Omrides (and thus relegate the united monarchy of David and Solomon to the realm of legend); Hazor (along with Megiddo and Gezer) is among the sites whose interpretation is central to the debate over the “high” and “low chronologies” of Israelite history. At any rate, the “Solomonic” city was destroyed in the late ninth century, possibly as a part of the invasion of the Aramean king Ben-Hadad (1 Kings 15:20 [Hazor is not mentioned, though it is encompassed in the region more generally described; see also Josh. 19:36–37]).

The Bible does not describe a subsequent rebuilding of the city, but it was again destroyed by the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III in 732 BC (2 Kings 15:29), an event evidenced in the archaeology of the site. The repeated destructions of Hazor testify to the importance of its site along the “Way of the Sea” from Egypt to the northern Levant.

(2) Jeremiah 49:28–33 describes Nebuchadnezzar’s campaign against “Kedar and the kingdoms of Hazor.” Based on the association with Kedar and the description of Hazor as “a nation that has neither gates nor bars” (49:31), and a people with camels and herds (49:32), the Hazor of this passage appears to be a nomadic tribal entity rather than the heavily fortified city of Solomonic times.

(3) In its description of Judahite territory, Josh. 15:23–25 refers to Hazor (15:23), Hazor Hadattah, and “Kerioth Hezron (that is, Hazor)” (15:25). Based on the occurrence of these place names in a list of Judahite sites, they are distinct from the northern city (Tell el-Qedah).

(4) Nehemiah 11:33 lists Hazor among the settlements of the Benjamites after the exile. It is not clear whether this location is distinct from those listed in Josh. 15:23–25.

A town that was part of the tribe of Judah’s traditional territorial allotment (Josh. 15:25). It was located in the southernmost part of Judah, near the border with Edom. Although the KJV translates the name as two separate towns, most scholars believe that Hazor Hadattah is one town.

The daughter of Etam, and the sister of Jezreel, Ishma, and Idbash, listed in the genealogy of Judah (1 Chron. 4:3). The exact relationship of Etam to Judah is unclear due to a textual ambiguity. The Hebrew reads “these the father of Etam.” It has been suggested that something was omitted by a copyist between “these” and “father.” If so, then it is possible that Etam may not have been her father, but rather a brother. Since many of the other names are place names, it has also been suggested that “Hazzelelponi” is the place name of an unknown location.

A son or daughter of Koz, descending from Judah (1 Chron. 4:8). Other versions translate this name as “Zobebah.”

In both Testaments “head” can refer to the literal head of the physical body or be symbolic of leadership and the source of provision.

The physical head played a significant role in Jewish and Christian customs. Cutting off an opponent’s head was a symbol of victory (1 Sam. 17:46; 1 Chron. 10:9–10). The consecration of priests and kings was done by anointing the head with oil (Exod. 29:7; Lev. 8:12; 1 Sam. 10:1). Contrition and shame were displayed by covering one’s head (2 Sam. 15:30; Jer. 14:3). Grief was expressed by casting dust or ashes on the head (Job 1:20; 2 Sam. 13:19; 15:32; Lam. 2:10; Ezek. 27:30; Rev. 18:19) or shaving one’s own head (Job 1:20; Jer. 16:6). The head was the place for receiving blessing, as when Jacob laid his hands on Manasseh and Ephraim to bless them (Gen. 48:14), or guilt, as when Solomon declared that the guilt over the blood of the two Israelite commanders murdered by Joab would rest “on the head of Joab and his descendants forever” (1 Kings 2:33). Lifting up the head was associated with the giving of life in terms of success (Gen. 40:13; Judg. 8:28; Ps. 27:6).

Because of the prominent physical role of the head as the topmost and preeminent part of the body, it was often used as a symbol for leadership and the source of provision. Ancient medical writers such as Hippocrates and Galen viewed the head as the leading member of the body. Ancient political writers adapted the idea and applied it to military and political leaders, such as Nero, who was called the “head” of Rome. For the political writers in particular, the emphasis often was on the power and authority of the head.

Examples of this use of “head” as leader and source of provision in the Bible include Judg. 10:18, where the leaders of Gilead declare that whoever launches the attack against the Ammonites will be the head of the inhabitants of Gilead. After the elders successfully appeal to Jephthah, the people make him “head and commander” over them (Judg. 11:11). Christ’s ruling function is emphasized in Col. 2:10, where he is called the “head over every power and authority.” In Eph. 4:16 Paul states that Christ as the head is the one “from [whom] the whole body . . . grows and builds itself up in love.”

In the NT, Paul’s use of the metaphor for the relationship between Christ and the church and husbands and wives is particularly significant. When Paul applies the metaphor to Christ and the church, he implies that Christ provides both leadership to the body as well as the nourishment needed for its continued growth. Thus, in Col. 2:19 the head is the one “from whom the whole body . . . grows as God causes it to grow,” and in Eph. 5:23–24 Christ is “the head of the . . . body,” the one to whom the church submits.

Paul uses the head/body metaphor in reference to Christ with some flexibility. Whereas Christ is the head of the church, his body, in Ephesians and Colossians, in 1 Cor. 11:3 his headship is part of a series in which God is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of man, and man is the head of woman. In Eph. 1:22 he is head over the entire universe.

In Eph. 5:21–33 the head/body metaphor is applied to the relationship between husbands and wives, and specifically in comparison with Christ and the church’s relationship as head and body. As Christ is the head of the church, so is the husband the head of the wife. Thus, both provide leadership and growth to their respective bodies. It is important to note that the husband’s role as head is defined in terms of loving his wife and bringing her to holiness. The husband’s headship does not consist of an arbitrary power over his wife, especially one based on his own interests and whims. Rather, it is a sacrificial leadership that reflects Christ’s love for the church. It is a leadership in which he gives his life for his wife as Christ gave his life for the church and nourishes her by providing what is most beneficial for her. See also Head of the Church.

A metaphor used by the apostle Paul to speak of Christ’s relationship with the church, which he calls the “body of Christ” (1 Cor. 12:27). With the headship image Paul highlights Christ’s authority over all things (Eph. 1:22) and his vital union with the body (1:23). He portrays Christ as the goal of Christian maturity and growth (4:15) and as one deserving the church’s submission (5:23). Paul also employs headship language in the midst of a presentation of Christ as preeminent and divine, the creator and unifier (Col. 1:18).

When the Greek word for “head” (kephalē) is used figuratively of a person, it frequently depicts one of superior rank who occupies a role of authority over another (similar to the “headmaster” of a school). Possibly, kephalē can be used to describe one who is the source of another (similar to the “headwaters” of a river) or to merely emphasize an organic relationship of unity and interconnectedness with a body. See also Head.

Similar to turbans, these items of clothing were wrapped around the head primarily to provide protection from the sun (1 Kings 20:38) or because they were required for priests (Exod. 29:6; Zech. 3:5). Due to Israel’s climate, they were likely used with great frequency, and ancient art confirms their widespread use. The Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III (858–824 BC) depicts King Jehu with a pointed cap. The Lachish reliefs, portraying Sennacherib’s defeat of the Judean city Lachish, picture men with fringed headscarves covering their ears. The women are pictured with a mantle pulled over the head. Married women in Israel were required to wear a veil covering their head, but unmarried women had veils to cover the face (Gen. 24:65; 38:14–15). In NT times women wore a veil especially in worship contexts (1 Cor. 11:2–16).

Similar to turbans, these items of clothing were wrapped around the head primarily to provide protection from the sun (1 Kings 20:38) or because they were required for priests (Exod. 29:6; Zech. 3:5). Due to Israel’s climate, they were likely used with great frequency, and ancient art confirms their widespread use. The Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III (858–824 BC) depicts King Jehu with a pointed cap. The Lachish reliefs, portraying Sennacherib’s defeat of the Judean city Lachish, picture men with fringed headscarves covering their ears. The women are pictured with a mantle pulled over the head. Married women in Israel were required to wear a veil covering their head, but unmarried women had veils to cover the face (Gen. 24:65; 38:14–15). In NT times women wore a veil especially in worship contexts (1 Cor. 11:2–16).

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.).

In the NIV “capstone” appears twice (Zech. 4:7, 10). Zechariah 4:7 uses the phrase ha’eben haro’shah, meaning “uppermost stone.” In Zech. 4:10, the NIV interprets ha’eben as another reference to the capstone, although most other translations understand this as the weight suspended from a plumb line. See also Cornerstone.

The restoration to full health of one who has been ill or injured. The Bible makes a few brief references to standard “medical” attempts to heal people. For example, Jeremiah mentions a balm of Gilead (Jer. 8:22; 46:11), and Isaiah orders a “poultice of figs” to be applied to a boil on King Hezekiah (Isa. 38:21). But medical treatment in the biblical world was primitive and often based more on superstition than on understanding. Before the advent of modern medicine, most injuries and sicknesses were quite serious; treatments and therapies were rarely effective. Most of the healing mentioned in the Bible, therefore, is of a miraculous nature and associated with divine empowerment.

Old Testament. In the OT, the occurrences of healing miracles, as well as other miracles, are not evenly distributed throughout Israel’s history but instead are concentrated in two time periods: that of the exodus, and that of Elijah and Elisha (1 Kings 17–2 Kings 13). During these two eras, miracles in general, and healing in particular, authenticated God’s prophets and leaders and authenticated the word of God spoken by these prophets and leaders.

The OT prophets, Jeremiah in particular, frequently use the imagery of wounds and sickness to describe the apostasy and the terrible spiritual situation of Israel and Judah. In his first twenty-nine chapters, while Jeremiah is bemoaning the fact that the people of Judah have turned to other gods and refuse to repent, he regularly uses imagery of sickness and wounds. He declares that Israel/Judah is wounded and/or sick, but that there is no healing for them, only judgment. He asks, for example, “Is there no balm in Gilead? . . . Why then is there no healing for the wound of my people?” (Jer. 8:22). This theme is repeated in the book (8:15; 10:19; 14:19; 15:18).

In Jer. 30–33, however, Jeremiah turns to the glorious restoration brought about by the coming Messiah. Part of this glorious restoration, Jeremiah declares, will be a drastic reversal from a time of sickness with no healing (symbolizing sin and defiance) to a time characterized by healing and health. For example, in 30:12–15 God uses physical sickness and wounds in his imagery to describe the serious, incurable spiritual sickness in Jerusalem. Yet in stark contrast to statements like these, in the passages that follow God looks to the messianic future and proclaims, “But I will restore you to health and heal your wounds” (30:17). Isaiah uses similar imagery, but he expands it by adding that people will ultimately be healed through the suffering and the wounds (i.e., the death) of the coming Messiah (Isa. 53:4–5).

New Testament. In the Gospels, healing is a significant component of Jesus’ ministry. Although the prophets used sickness/healing imagery primarily in a metaphorical sense to describe the spiritual condition of Israel and Judah, Jesus actually fulfills their prophecies both figuratively and literally. That is, not only does Jesus heal people spiritually, providing forgiveness and restoration to wholeness, but also he frequently heals people physically (blindness, leprosy, paralysis, etc.), ironically fulfilling figurative prophecies in a literal manner. The Greek word for “to save” (sōzō) can also mean “to heal,” thus adding to this dual idea of literal healing that is also figurative of spiritual salvation. For example, when Jesus turns to the bleeding woman who touches him in faith, he declares to her, “Your faith has healed [sōzō] you” (Mark 5:34). Here the word sōzō can indicate either physical healing (her bleeding had stopped) or spiritual healing (forgiveness of sins and deliverance from judgment).

Jesus frequently heals people throughout his ministry here on earth. His acts of healing authenticate him as the fulfillment of specific OT messianic prophecies and also highlight the fact that he comes in great power, a power that identifies him with the Lord, the great healer in the OT. In addition, Jesus’ acts of healing announce and characterize the inbreaking of the kingdom of God, underscoring that in the ultimate consummation of the kingdom all sickness (as well as blindness, leprosy, lameness, etc.) will be eliminated. This theme is continued at the end of the book of Revelation as John depicts the tree of life growing on both sides of the river of the water of life. The leaves from this tree, John concludes, “are for the healing of the nations” (22:1–2).

The concept of health is translated by no less than twelve different words in the Bible, incorporating the physical, social, and spiritual dimensions of life. Perhaps the most inclusive biblical term for health is the Hebrew word shalom, often translated “peace,” which embraces both the private (health, wholeness, prosperity, deliverance) and public (friendship, absence of war) spheres of life, with the basic sense of wholeness and well-being (e.g., Lev. 26:6; Num. 6:26; Pss. 7:4; 29:11; Prov. 14:30; Lam. 3:17). Shalom is God’s presence and favor toward his people, who share these graces with their neighbors (Matt. 10:13; John 14:26–27).

Physically, a healthy person enjoys fullness of body (Ps. 73:4; Dan. 1:15), without being overweight (Judg. 3:17). John the elder wishes Gaius “good health” (hygiainō) in 3 John 2. Another quality is a sound mind, the ability to produce benefit for others and cope with loss and suffering. Oppression and poverty hinder well-being. Health is also a joyous feeling of restoration after illness (Isa. 38:16). The Greek adjective hygiēs (“whole,” “healthy”) and related verb hygiainō (“be whole/healthy”) are commonly used of the results of healing in the Gospels (e.g., Matt. 12:13; 15:31; Luke 5:31; 7:10; John 5:9, 11).

Scripture also presumes a spiritual component to health (Ps. 38:3; Prov. 3:7–8). Although the Gospels distinguish illness from demonic oppression, the line is not as thick as we find in the works of Hippocrates (c. 460–370 BC), the father of Western medicine, who argues that diseases have natural origins. The gospel unequivocally denies ultimate well-being without reconciliation between the Creator and the creation, source and derivation, God and human being.

Physiologically, the heart is an organ in the body, and in the Bible it is also used in a number of metaphors. The NT uses the Greek term kardia similarly to the OT Hebrew terms leb and lebab and in some cases depends on OT usage.

Mind and Emotions

Metaphorically, the heart refers to the mind, the will, the seat of emotions, or even the whole person. It also refers to the center of something or its inner part. These metaphors come from the heart’s importance and location.

Mind. The heart refers to the mind, but not the brain, and in these cases does not involve human physiology. It is a metaphor, and while the neurophysiology of the heart may be interesting in its own right, it has no bearing on this use of language. We also should not confuse some modern English idioms or distinctions as being related to the biblical viewpoint. The Bible does not make a distinction between “head knowledge” and “heart knowledge,” nor does it employ language making the “heart” good or superior and the “head/mind” bad, inferior, or merely intellectual. It does not prize the emotional over the thoughtful; it has a more integrated viewpoint.

Deuteronomy 6:5 issues the command to love God with all one’s heart, soul, and strength. When the command is repeated in the Gospels, it occurs in three variations (Matt. 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27). Common to all three is the addition of the word “mind.” The Gospel writers want to be sure that the audience hears Jesus adding “mind,” but this addition is based on the fact that the meaning of the Hebrew word for “heart” includes the mind.

The mental activities of the metaphorical heart are abundant. The heart is where a person thinks (Gen. 6:5; Deut. 7:17; 1 Chron. 29:18; Rev. 18:7), where a person comprehends and has understanding (1 Kings 3:9; Job 17:4; Ps. 49:3; Prov. 14:13; Matt. 13:15). The heart makes plans and has intentions (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Prov. 20:5; 1 Chron. 29:18; Jer. 23:20). One believes with the heart (Luke 24:25; Acts 8:37; Rom. 10:9). The heart is the site of wisdom, discernment, and skill (Exod. 35:34; 36:2; 1 Kings 3:9; 10:24). The heart is the place of memory (Deut. 4:9; Ps. 119:11). The heart plays the role of conscience (2 Sam. 24:10; 1 John 3:20–21).

It is often worth the effort to substitute “mind” for “heart” when reading the Bible in order to grasp the mental dimension. For example, after telling the Israelites to love God with all their heart, Moses says, “These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts” (Deut. 6:6). Reading it instead as “be on your mind” changes our perspective, and in this case the idiom “on your mind” is clearer and more accurate. The following verses instruct parents to talk to their children throughout the day about God’s words. In order for parents to do this, God’s requirements and deeds need to be constantly on their minds, out of their love for him. Similarly, love for God and loyalty are expressed by meditation on and determination to obey his law (Ps. 119:11, 112). The law is not merely a list of rules; it is also a repository of a worldview in which the Lord is the only God. To live consistently with this truth requires careful, reflective thought.

Emotions and attitude. The heart, as the seat of emotion, is associated with a number of feelings and sentiments, such as gladness (Exod. 4:14; Acts 2:26), hatred (Lev. 19:17), pride (Deut. 8:14), resentment (Deut. 15:10), dread (Deut. 28:67), sympathy (Judg. 5:9), love (Judg. 16:15), sadness (1 Sam. 1:8; John 16:6), and jealousy and ambition (James 3:14). The heart is also the frame of reference for attitudes such as willingness, courage, and desire.

Idioms

The word “heart” also appears in several idioms.

Hardness of heart. A hard heart is obstinate or averse (Mark 3:5), while a tender heart is humble (2 Kings 22:19). In the book of Exodus the translations typically say that God or Pharaoh hardened Pharaoh’s/his heart. These passages in Exodus use not the Hebrew words for hardness but rather those for being heavy or for strengthening. The neutral sense of strengthening the heart takes on nuances in context for being bold or obstinate. Pharaoh was strengthened in his opposition to God, and this obstinacy fits the idiom of having a hard heart.

Uncircumcised/circumcised heart. An uncircumcised heart is a metaphor for an obstinate and rebellious heart, while a circumcised heart is linked to being humble and faithful (Lev. 26:41; Deut. 30:6; Jer. 4:4; Acts 7:51). Perhaps the metaphor is based on the role of circumcision in the covenant.

“A man after his [God’s] own heart” (1 Sam. 13:14). This description of David may mean either “according to his [God’s] choice” (cf. 2 Sam. 7:21), stressing God’s choice over the people’s choice, or it may mean “in accordance with his [God’s] desire” (1 Sam. 14:7; 1 Kings 15:3), referring to how David showed conformity with God’s agenda.

All the heart. The phrase “with all [one’s] heart” in some cases means “wholeheartedly” or “single-mindedly,” which emphasizes unity of purpose and focus. In other cases it seems to mean, more broadly, “with all of one’s thinking or perspective” and implies the work of adjusting our worldview away from common cultural assumptions and toward God’s teaching.

Say in one’s heart. This expression denotes talking to oneself (i.e., thinking) rather than out loud or indicates reflection or deliberation. There are several warnings not to lie to oneself—that is, not to deliberate, believe, and act on the stated false premise.

Take [a matter] to heart. To take something to heart is to take it very seriously or to give it high priority.

A type of fire pit used either for cooking purposes or for warmth. King Jehoiakim used one in his winter house. Archaeologists have suggested that this hearth was a three-legged copper or bronze piece (Jer. 36:22 [NIV: “firepot”]). Hearths also may have been as rustic as a hole in the ground or a raised mud-brick structure (cf. Isa. 29:2; 30:14). Certain architectural features of hearths were characteristic of certain cultures, such as the freestanding hearths found in Philistine contexts but never in a Canaanite setting. The hearth is also associated with the sacrificial altar (Lev. 6:9). According to Ezekiel’s descriptions, the hearth had four horns protruding from the top (Ezek. 43:15).

In Jer. 17:6; 48:6 the KJV translates the related Hebrew words ’ar’ar and ’aro’er as “heath” (NIV: “bush”; NASB: “juniper” in Jer. 48:6), referring to a desert bush located in the Arabah. The Hebrew word ’ar’ar also means “naked,” which aptly describes the small scalelike leaves that clothe the bush. The word is used by the prophet to suggest the barrenness of those who trust in humankind rather than God and contrasts with the tree by the water in Jer. 17:8.

The word “Gentiles” is often used to translate words meaning “nations” or “peoples.” It has a Latin etymology from gens, meaning “clan” or “family” and, eventually, “race” or “people.” The Greek word genos (“race, kind”) has a close relationship. In the Bible it loosely refers to nations or peoples other than Israel. English Bibles often translate it as “nations,” “peoples,” or “races.”

Old Testament

In general, within the OT, Gentiles are not God’s people. God chose Israel to be his people, not other nations (Deut. 7:6–8; 10:15; 26:18–19). Israelite ancestry determines membership in the covenant people. Some writings thus forbid Gentiles from becoming part of God’s people (Ezra 9–10; Neh. 13).

The OT more commonly envisions Gentiles experiencing covenant blessing through Israel if they functionally become Israelites by keeping the law, including the parts we understand as ceremonial-ritual law. The law is that special life-giving and regulating aspect of the covenant that God revealed to Israel, which defines Israel (Lev. 18:1–5; 20:22–26; Deut. 4:1–8, 32–40; 6:24–25; 8:1–6; 10:12–11:32; 30:11–20; Josh. 1:7–9; Neh. 9:29; Pss. 119; 147:19–20; Ezek. 20:9–13, 21).

Such law/Israel-centered conditions for Gentiles relate to a broader OT understanding: God will reach and restore the world through Israel, the locus of his saving activity. God will bless the nations in and through Abraham’s descendants, Israel (Gen. 12:1–3; 17:4–6; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14). This covenant specifically involves keeping the law (e.g., circumcision [Gen. 17:9–14]). Some passages depict this happening through the nations being subject to Israel (Gen. 49:8–12; Num. 24:9, 17–19; Isa. 11:10–16; 14:2; 54:3). In other passages the nations will be blessed by Israel’s God as they come to Israel, bring back exiled Israel, serve Israel, present Israel with their own wealth, and/or fear Israel’s God (Isa. 45:23; 49:22–23; 51:4–5; 55:5; 60:3–16; 61:5–6; 66:12–13, 18–21; Mic. 7:12–17; Zech. 2:11; 8:22–23). Other passages further elucidate the law-defined nature of such Gentile participation in the God of Israel’s salvation (Exod. 12:48; Isa. 56:1–8; Jer. 12:14–17; Zech. 14:16–21). The portrait of the nations “flowing” up the mountain of God associates Gentile participation in God’s salvation explicitly with the law (Isa. 2:2–5; Mic. 4:1–5).

The Servant Songs in Isa. 40–55 also reflect this law/Israel-centered nature of salvation for the Gentiles. The servant, explicitly identified as Israel (41:8, 9; 42:18–19; 44:1–2, 21; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3; 54:17; see also 65:9; 66:14), serves as God’s instrument for reaching the nations (42:1, 6; 49:6; 52:15). The OT usually condemns Gentiles who remain separate from Israel to some form of judgment, especially Gentiles who have harmed Israel.

Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity

Second Temple Jewish sources exhibit diverse views about Gentiles, their nature, their possible relation to God, and their fate at the end. Many reflect something resembling the OT views. Israel as God’s people defined by the law, variously understood and contested among Second Temple sources, generally continues to be the locus of God’s ultimate blessing activities.

Situating Jesus and early Christianity within this matrix of Gentile sensitivities is illuminating. As the Jesus movement spread across the Mediterranean, proclaiming the ultimate salvation of the God of Israel in and through Jesus the Messiah, questions about how Gentiles experience this salvation of the Jewish God had paramount importance.

Some Christians, in line with traditional readings of the OT, thought that Gentiles must keep the law, becoming Jews to experience the God of Israel’s salvation in Jesus (Acts 11:1–3; 15:1, 5; Paul’s opponents in Galatia). Gentiles, after all, were separated from God and his salvation promises to Israel (Rom. 9:4–5; Eph. 2:11–13; 1 Pet. 2:10). They stood under God’s condemnation, especially because they were controlled by their passions and sin, lacking self-mastery and the ability to live rightly (Rom. 1:18–32; Eph. 4:17–19; 1 Thess. 4:5; 1 Pet. 1:14, 18).

However, various NT authors, such as Paul, contend that Gentiles need not keep the law, functionally becoming Jews, in order to participate in God’s ultimate salvation in Jesus. Christ, the climax of Israel itself, has replaced the law’s centrality and ultimacy with himself and his death and resurrection (Rom. 10:4). Through being united to Christ by the Spirit, Gentiles are, apart from the law, grafted into true, redefined Israel and become Abraham’s descendants, inheriting God’s promised salvation for Israel (Rom. 3:21–4:25; 8:1–17; 9:30–10:17; 11:13–32; Gal. 2:11–4:7; Eph. 2:11–22; 3:4–6). In Christ, by the Spirit, Gentiles attain self-mastery over their passions and sin and thus live rightly before God, inheriting the kingdom of God in Christ (Rom. 6:1–8:30; 1 Cor. 6:9–11; Gal. 5:16–26; 1 Thess. 4:3–8). Various NT writings thus reconfigure the situation of Gentiles with respect to Israel’s God because of what God did in Christ.

Debates about Gentiles, the law, salvation, and what Christ means for these issues persisted after Paul. Early Christians lacked an unequivocal saying from Jesus on the matter, and not all accepted Paul and some other NT writings.

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).

The present abode of God and the final dwelling place of the righteous. The ancient Jews distinguished three different heavens. The first heaven was the atmospheric heavens of the clouds and where the birds fly (Gen. 1:20). The second heaven was the celestial heavens of the sun, the moon, and the stars. The third heaven was the present home of God and the angels. Paul builds on this understanding of a third heaven in 2 Cor. 12:2–4, where he describes himself as a man who “was caught up to the third heaven” or “paradise,” where he “heard inexpressible things.” This idea of multiple heavens also shows itself in how the Jews normally spoke of “heavens” in the plural (Gen. 1:1), while most other ancient cultures spoke of “heaven” in the singular.

The Abode of God

One of the challenges in understanding “heaven” as the present dwelling place of God involves God’s omnipresence. In one sense, God is present everywhere. David asks in Ps. 139:7, “Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence?” He answers that regardless of whether he goes as high up as anyone can go (“up to the heavens”), as low down as anyone can go (“in the depths), as far east as anyone can go (“the wings of the dawn”), or as far west as anyone can go (“the far side of the sea”), God is still there (Ps. 139:8–9).

Although God is present everywhere, God is also present in a special way in “heaven.” During Jesus’ earthly ministry, the Father is sometimes described as speaking in “a voice from heaven” (Matt. 3:17). Similarly, Jesus instructs us to address our prayers to “Our Father in heaven” (6:9). Even the specific request in the Lord’s Prayer that “your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven” (6:10) reminds us that heaven is a place already under God’s full jurisdiction, where his will is presently being done completely and perfectly. Jesus also warns of the dangers of despising “one of these little ones,” because “their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven” (18:10). Jesus “came down from heaven” (John 6:51) for his earthly ministry, and after his death and resurrection, he ascended back “into heaven,” from where he “will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11).

At times, “heaven” becomes virtually a synonym for God himself. In the parable of the prodigal son in Luke 15, the son confesses to his father, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you” (v. 21). This son’s sin against “heaven” has nothing to do with environmental issues such as air pollution, and everything to do with his relationship with God. Note also Matthew’s expression “the kingdom of heaven” versus “the kingdom of God” used elsewhere.

The Final Dwelling Place for Believers

Given this strong connection between heaven and God’s presence, there is a natural connection in Scripture between heaven and the ultimate hope of believers. Believers are promised a reward in heaven (“Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven” [Matt. 5:12]), and even now believers can “store up for [themselves] treasures in heaven” (6:20). Even in this present life, “our citizenship is in heaven” (Phil. 3:20), and our hope at death is to “depart and be with Christ, which is better by far” (1:23). Since Christ is currently in heaven, deceased believers are already present with Christ in heaven awaiting his return, when “God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him” (1 Thess. 4:14).

However, this picture of heaven is more complicated. It is true that heaven is sometimes used in Scripture to refer to the present abode of all departed believers who have left this present life and entered the intermediate state between death and the bodily resurrection (2 Cor. 5:4). It is this hope in a bodily resurrection that sets Christianity apart from other religions. Ultimately, the Christian hope is not that people will receive new physical bodies and float around some ethereal “heaven” like astronauts in outer space for all eternity. Instead, God has created human beings with physical bodies to inhabit a physical world, and our future hope is one of new resurrection bodies inhabiting new heavens and a new earth (Isa. 65:17; 66:22; 2 Pet. 3:13). Just as there will be a certain continuity between the bodies of believers in this present life and their new resurrection bodies (we will know one another), there will also be a certain continuity between this present earth and the new earth to come. Yet, at the same time, everything will also be changed and made new and perfect, as God has designed it to be (Rom. 8:18–21).

The clearest description of this new reality is found in Rev. 21–22, where John describes how he “saw ‘a new heaven and a new earth,’ for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away” (21:1). Here is “the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband” (21:2), when “God himself will be with them and be their God. ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away” (21:3–4). Even better than all the descriptions of such things as streets of “gold, as pure as transparent glass” (21:21) is that God himself will come and dwell in the midst of his people. As Paul has phrased it, “Now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face” (1 Cor. 13:12). The day will come when we will see God as he is, in all his glory (1 John 3:2).

Two other ideas complete our picture of life in these new heavens and new earth. Heaven will be a place of continued activity and service. Notice Jesus’ blessing in Matt. 25:21: “Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things.” The other principle is that there will be different degrees of reward. Although our ultimate reward is simply being with God himself, Paul also reminds us that if what believers do with their lives “survives, the builder will receive a reward,” and if what they do “is burned up, the builder will suffer loss” (1 Cor. 3:14–15 NRSV). Our choices make a difference for time and eternity (cf. Rev. 14:13). See also Heavens, New.

The expression “highest heaven” (Heb. sheme hashamayim, lit., “heavens of heavens” [cf. KJV]) is used in the OT to point to the greatness of God. Praying to God, Solomon commented, “The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you” (1 Kings 8:27; 2 Chron. 6:18). Even these highest heavens are simply a part of God’s creation (Neh. 9:6), belong to him (Deut. 10:14), and praise him (Ps. 148:4).

The idea of the divine council appears throughout the remains of the ancient Near East, including the OT. Taking various forms, it generally involves numerous deities subservient to an overall patriarchal divine figure (or couple)—for example, El in Ugaritic materials, and Yahweh in the OT. Some forms of the mythic pattern situate the council on the cosmic mountain, which connects the heavens and earth. Just as life, fertility, and order radiate out from the cosmic mountain, so too do the decisions of the divine council determine life and history from there. The messenger or prophet is often conceived of as someone who has been granted access to the divine council, frequently by vision, and who is charged to communicate its reality-determining decisions. Often the council has four tiers of divinities, ranging from the overall divine patriarchal figure or couple, through major deities controlling significant aspects of creation, down to the lower tier of messenger and intermediary gods who enact decisions of the council. Some sources depict the council as a divine family.

The heavenly council appears in the OT, though the lower tiers have been collapsed into one other tier of divinities subservient to Yahweh. Psalm 82 constitutes a classic example. God upbraids the lower gods for not executing their ruling tasks properly. It also reflects the common notion of lower gods ruling over peoples or other aspects of creation (see also Deut. 32:8–9). Another example of the divine council, in 1 Kings 22:5–28, highlights the role of the prophet as one granted access, through vision, who proclaims its decisions. Job 1–2 and Zech. 3 also provide glimpses of the divine council interacting. Note here the “sons of God” in Job 1:6 (KJV; NIV: “angels”), perhaps reflecting the divine family aspect of the council. See also the “Let us” or “us” passages from the divine voice in Genesis, wherein Yahweh communicates with the rest of the deities about actions to undertake (1:26; 3:22; 11:6–7). Numerous other passages in the OT manifest the notion of the divine council, either referring directly to it or indicating the existence of other deities alongside Yahweh and envisioning their council together. In the Second Temple period and within apocalyptic thought, the lower deities begin more consistently to be conceived of as angels. The Bible generally assumes the existence of other deities but views them as creatures rather than the Creator and restricts worship to the one true God.

The present abode of God and the final dwelling place of the righteous. The ancient Jews distinguished three different heavens. The first heaven was the atmospheric heavens of the clouds and where the birds fly (Gen. 1:20). The second heaven was the celestial heavens of the sun, the moon, and the stars. The third heaven was the present home of God and the angels. Paul builds on this understanding of a third heaven in 2 Cor. 12:2–4, where he describes himself as a man who “was caught up to the third heaven” or “paradise,” where he “heard inexpressible things.” This idea of multiple heavens also shows itself in how the Jews normally spoke of “heavens” in the plural (Gen. 1:1), while most other ancient cultures spoke of “heaven” in the singular.

The Abode of God

One of the challenges in understanding “heaven” as the present dwelling place of God involves God’s omnipresence. In one sense, God is present everywhere. David asks in Ps. 139:7, “Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence?” He answers that regardless of whether he goes as high up as anyone can go (“up to the heavens”), as low down as anyone can go (“in the depths), as far east as anyone can go (“the wings of the dawn”), or as far west as anyone can go (“the far side of the sea”), God is still there (Ps. 139:8–9).

Although God is present everywhere, God is also present in a special way in “heaven.” During Jesus’ earthly ministry, the Father is sometimes described as speaking in “a voice from heaven” (Matt. 3:17). Similarly, Jesus instructs us to address our prayers to “Our Father in heaven” (6:9). Even the specific request in the Lord’s Prayer that “your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven” (6:10) reminds us that heaven is a place already under God’s full jurisdiction, where his will is presently being done completely and perfectly. Jesus also warns of the dangers of despising “one of these little ones,” because “their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven” (18:10). Jesus “came down from heaven” (John 6:51) for his earthly ministry, and after his death and resurrection, he ascended back “into heaven,” from where he “will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11).

At times, “heaven” becomes virtually a synonym for God himself. In the parable of the prodigal son in Luke 15, the son confesses to his father, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you” (v. 21). This son’s sin against “heaven” has nothing to do with environmental issues such as air pollution, and everything to do with his relationship with God. Note also Matthew’s expression “the kingdom of heaven” versus “the kingdom of God” used elsewhere.

The Final Dwelling Place for Believers

Given this strong connection between heaven and God’s presence, there is a natural connection in Scripture between heaven and the ultimate hope of believers. Believers are promised a reward in heaven (“Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven” [Matt. 5:12]), and even now believers can “store up for [themselves] treasures in heaven” (6:20). Even in this present life, “our citizenship is in heaven” (Phil. 3:20), and our hope at death is to “depart and be with Christ, which is better by far” (1:23). Since Christ is currently in heaven, deceased believers are already present with Christ in heaven awaiting his return, when “God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him” (1 Thess. 4:14).

However, this picture of heaven is more complicated. It is true that heaven is sometimes used in Scripture to refer to the present abode of all departed believers who have left this present life and entered the intermediate state between death and the bodily resurrection (2 Cor. 5:4). It is this hope in a bodily resurrection that sets Christianity apart from other religions. Ultimately, the Christian hope is not that people will receive new physical bodies and float around some ethereal “heaven” like astronauts in outer space for all eternity. Instead, God has created human beings with physical bodies to inhabit a physical world, and our future hope is one of new resurrection bodies inhabiting new heavens and a new earth (Isa. 65:17; 66:22; 2 Pet. 3:13). Just as there will be a certain continuity between the bodies of believers in this present life and their new resurrection bodies (we will know one another), there will also be a certain continuity between this present earth and the new earth to come. Yet, at the same time, everything will also be changed and made new and perfect, as God has designed it to be (Rom. 8:18–21).

The clearest description of this new reality is found in Rev. 21–22, where John describes how he “saw ‘a new heaven and a new earth,’ for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away” (21:1). Here is “the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband” (21:2), when “God himself will be with them and be their God. ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away” (21:3–4). Even better than all the descriptions of such things as streets of “gold, as pure as transparent glass” (21:21) is that God himself will come and dwell in the midst of his people. As Paul has phrased it, “Now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face” (1 Cor. 13:12). The day will come when we will see God as he is, in all his glory (1 John 3:2).

Two other ideas complete our picture of life in these new heavens and new earth. Heaven will be a place of continued activity and service. Notice Jesus’ blessing in Matt. 25:21: “Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things.” The other principle is that there will be different degrees of reward. Although our ultimate reward is simply being with God himself, Paul also reminds us that if what believers do with their lives “survives, the builder will receive a reward,” and if what they do “is burned up, the builder will suffer loss” (1 Cor. 3:14–15 NRSV). Our choices make a difference for time and eternity (cf. Rev. 14:13). See also Heavens, New.

(1) A descendant of Asher and son of Beriah who is listed as the head of a clan (Gen. 46:17; Num. 26:45; 1 Chron. 7:31). (2) A Kenite who separated himself from his people and lived at the great tree in Zaanannim near Kedesh (Judg. 4:11). He was married to Jael, who rescued Israel from their Canaanite oppressors. Taking advantage of the fact that Jabin, the Canaanite king, was on friendly terms with the Kenites, Jael lured the fleeing Sisera, commander of Jabin’s army, into her tent. After hiding him and giving him a drink, she pounded a tent peg through his temple while he slept (4:17–21). (3) A descendant of Judah and a son of Mered by his Judean wife (1 Chron. 4:18). He was the father of Soco. (4) A descendant of Benjamin and a son of Elpaal (1 Chron. 8:17). (5) In the Lukan genealogy of Jesus, the name “Eber” appears in the Greek text (Luke 3:35), which some versions translate as “Heber” (KJV, NASB), and others as “Eber” (NIV, NRSV, NET).

(1) A descendant of Asher and son of Beriah who is listed as the head of a clan (Gen. 46:17; Num. 26:45; 1 Chron. 7:31). (2) A Kenite who separated himself from his people and lived at the great tree in Zaanannim near Kedesh (Judg. 4:11). He was married to Jael, who rescued Israel from their Canaanite oppressors. Taking advantage of the fact that Jabin, the Canaanite king, was on friendly terms with the Kenites, Jael lured the fleeing Sisera, commander of Jabin’s army, into her tent. After hiding him and giving him a drink, she pounded a tent peg through his temple while he slept (4:17–21). (3) A descendant of Judah and a son of Mered by his Judean wife (1 Chron. 4:18). He was the father of Soco. (4) A descendant of Benjamin and a son of Elpaal (1 Chron. 8:17). (5) In the Lukan genealogy of Jesus, the name “Eber” appears in the Greek text (Luke 3:35), which some versions translate as “Heber” (KJV, NASB), and others as “Eber” (NIV, NRSV, NET).

(1) A son of Kohath, grandson of Levi, and uncle of Moses, Aaron, and Miriam (Exod. 6:18; Num. 3:19; 1 Chron. 6:2).

(2) The son of Mareshah, and either the grandson or great-great-grandson of Caleb (1 Chron. 2:42).

(3) A city located in the Judean hills eighteen miles south-southeast of Jerusalem, identified with modern El-Khalil in the West Bank, in an area well supplied with water from nearby wells and springs. There are several archaeological sites in the vicinity, but biblical Hebron has been positively identified with Tel Hebron (Jebel er-Rumeidah). Excavations there uncovered evidence of intermittent occupation ranging from the Early Bronze Age I (3300–3000 BC) to the Late Arab period (AD 1291–1516). Significant finds include a city wall from the Middle Bronze Age II (2000–1550 BC), an Akkadian cuneiform tablet, and five jar handles bearing the royal lmlk (“for the king”) stamp.

Hebron (also known as Kiriath Arba) played a significant role in OT narratives. After Lot chose to dwell in Sodom, Abram settled near the oaks of Mamre in Hebron (Gen. 13:18). When Sarah died, Abraham purchased land in Hebron for her burial (Gen. 23). Both Isaac and Jacob lived in Hebron, and from there Jacob sent Joseph to inquire about his brothers’ welfare (35:27; 37:14). When Moses sent twelve spies into the promised land, their glimpse of the large inhabitants of Hebron significantly influenced their negative report about the prospects for invasion (Num. 13:22, 33).

During the period of the conquest, Hebron’s king was among five kings whom Joshua killed after they attacked Gibeon (Josh. 10). Joshua went on to fight at Hebron, destroying the city and its Anakite inhabitants (11:21). The city was then deeded to Caleb (15:13), but later it was given to the Levites and became a city of refuge (20:7; 21:13).

Hebron played a prominent role during the united monarchy. After Saul died, God instructed David to go to Hebron. There the men of Judah anointed him as king, and he reigned from there for seven and a half years (2 Sam. 2:1–11). During this time, several sons were born to David in Hebron, and it was there that Joab, David’s commander, murdered Abner in revenge for his brother’s death (2 Sam. 3; 1 Chron. 3:1–4). When David’s authority became widely recognized, the elders of all the Israelite tribes came to Hebron and anointed him king over all Israel. He then moved his capital to Jerusalem after capturing it from the Jebusites (2 Sam. 5:1–10; 1 Chron. 11:1–9). When Absalom later conspired to become king, he chose Hebron as his headquarters (2 Sam. 15:1–10).

Hebron is next mentioned as one of the cities that Rehoboam fortified for the defense of Judah (2 Chron. 11:10) and as one of the locations where returning exiles settled (Neh. 11:25). During the Hasmonean period, Judas Maccabeus gained control over Hebron from the Edomites (Idumeans) (1 Macc. 5:65).

(1) A son of Kohath, grandson of Levi, and uncle of Moses, Aaron, and Miriam (Exod. 6:18; Num. 3:19; 1 Chron. 6:2).

(2) The son of Mareshah, and either the grandson or great-great-grandson of Caleb (1 Chron. 2:42).

(3) A city located in the Judean hills eighteen miles south-southeast of Jerusalem, identified with modern El-Khalil in the West Bank, in an area well supplied with water from nearby wells and springs. There are several archaeological sites in the vicinity, but biblical Hebron has been positively identified with Tel Hebron (Jebel er-Rumeidah). Excavations there uncovered evidence of intermittent occupation ranging from the Early Bronze Age I (3300–3000 BC) to the Late Arab period (AD 1291–1516). Significant finds include a city wall from the Middle Bronze Age II (2000–1550 BC), an Akkadian cuneiform tablet, and five jar handles bearing the royal lmlk (“for the king”) stamp.

Hebron (also known as Kiriath Arba) played a significant role in OT narratives. After Lot chose to dwell in Sodom, Abram settled near the oaks of Mamre in Hebron (Gen. 13:18). When Sarah died, Abraham purchased land in Hebron for her burial (Gen. 23). Both Isaac and Jacob lived in Hebron, and from there Jacob sent Joseph to inquire about his brothers’ welfare (35:27; 37:14). When Moses sent twelve spies into the promised land, their glimpse of the large inhabitants of Hebron significantly influenced their negative report about the prospects for invasion (Num. 13:22, 33).

During the period of the conquest, Hebron’s king was among five kings whom Joshua killed after they attacked Gibeon (Josh. 10). Joshua went on to fight at Hebron, destroying the city and its Anakite inhabitants (11:21). The city was then deeded to Caleb (15:13), but later it was given to the Levites and became a city of refuge (20:7; 21:13).

Hebron played a prominent role during the united monarchy. After Saul died, God instructed David to go to Hebron. There the men of Judah anointed him as king, and he reigned from there for seven and a half years (2 Sam. 2:1–11). During this time, several sons were born to David in Hebron, and it was there that Joab, David’s commander, murdered Abner in revenge for his brother’s death (2 Sam. 3; 1 Chron. 3:1–4). When David’s authority became widely recognized, the elders of all the Israelite tribes came to Hebron and anointed him king over all Israel. He then moved his capital to Jerusalem after capturing it from the Jebusites (2 Sam. 5:1–10; 1 Chron. 11:1–9). When Absalom later conspired to become king, he chose Hebron as his headquarters (2 Sam. 15:1–10).

Hebron is next mentioned as one of the cities that Rehoboam fortified for the defense of Judah (2 Chron. 11:10) and as one of the locations where returning exiles settled (Neh. 11:25). During the Hasmonean period, Judas Maccabeus gained control over Hebron from the Edomites (Idumeans) (1 Macc. 5:65).

In agriculture, a protective barrier placed around a vineyard to facilitate growth. A divine hedge may surround an individual (Job 1:10) or a nation (Isa. 5:5–7), enabling prosperity. The removal of a hedge has consequences (Job 1:11–19; Isa. 5:5–7). It also describes the placement of an obstacle that entangles an individual (Job 3:23; Hos. 2:6; cf. Mic. 7:4).

The Hebrew word qippod (Isa. 14:23; 34:11; Zeph. 2:14) sometimes is translated as “hedgehog” (NRSV, NASB, ESV). Hedgehogs are small, spiny, nocturnal animals, characterized by their habit of rolling up into a ball when threatened. They were indigenous in the ancient Near East. However, the other creatures mentioned in these verses are birds. The KJV translates qippod as “bittern,” but it is more likely that this word refers to some kind of owl (as in the NIV).

A eunuch in the service of King Xerxes (Ahasuerus) who was in charge of the harem at the point when Esther was chosen queen (Esther 2:3, 8, 15).

A eunuch in the service of King Xerxes (Ahasuerus) who was in charge of the harem at the point when Esther was chosen queen (Esther 2:3, 8, 15).

In 1 Chron. 8:7 the NRSV takes the Hebrew word heglam as an alternative name for “Gera, that is, Heglam.” Other translations, such as the NIV, treat it as a verb: “Gera, who deported them.”

A young cow, typically one that has not produced offspring. Heifers assisted people by plowing (Deut. 21:3) and producing milk, which could be curdled into cheese (Isa. 7:21). Samson compares the animal allegorically to his wife (Judg. 14:18). Jeremiah does the same with Egypt, which will be tormented by a Babylonian gadfly (Jer. 46:20). Hosea compares Israel to a stubborn heifer (Hos. 4:16). The lives of heifers were required for special sacrifices (Gen. 15:9; 1 Sam. 16:1–2). Their sacrifice also purged bloodguilt from the land as a consequence of murder when the culprit was unknown (Deut. 21:1–8). Through an elaborate ritual, the ashes of a red heifer were mixed with water for purification from uncleanness caused by coming into contact with a corpse (Num. 19:1–22; cf. Heb. 9:13).

Inheritance is an important concept that the Bible uses in several ways.

Family. In the ancient world every culture had customs for the passing of wealth and possessions from one generation to the next. In ancient Israel special provisions were made for inheriting land upon the death of the father. The firstborn son received a double portion; the rest was divided equally among the remaining sons. If a man lacked sons, priority went to the following in order: daughters, brothers, father’s brothers, next of kin (Num. 27:1–11). The OT provides guidance for additional circumstances (Gen. 38:8–9; Num. 36:6; Lev. 25:23–24; Deut. 21:15–17; 25:5–10; Ruth 2:20; 3:9–13; 4:1–12), with an overriding concern for the stability of the family and the retention of the land within a tribe. Under Roman law during the NT period, an heir had legal standing even while the father was still alive; his status was based on birth or adoption rather than the father’s death.

Old Testament. Even more prominent than family inheritance is the assertion that God gave the land of Canaan to Abraham and his descendants as an inheritance (Gen. 12:7; 15:18–21; 17:8; Num. 34:1–29; Deut. 12:10). This inheritance is God’s gracious gift, not something that Israel earned by its righteousness (Deut. 9:4–7). Descriptions of the land (“flowing with milk and honey”) and its fertility portray this gift as a new Eden, where God will dwell with his people (Exod. 3:8, 17; Lev. 20:24; Num. 16:13–14; Deut. 11:9–12). In some texts the language of inheritance moves beyond the land of Canaan to an international scope. In Ps. 2:8 the anointed king recounts God saying to him, “Ask me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession.” This expansion of inheritance from the land of Canaan to the ends of the earth prepares the way for a similar expansion in the NT (see Rom. 4:13).

God’s relationship with Israel is also described in terms of inheritance. On the one hand, Israel is described as God’s inheritance (Deut. 32:9; 1 Sam. 10:1; 1 Kings 8:51–53); on the other hand, God is Israel’s inheritance (Pss. 16:5; 73:26; Jer. 10:16; 51:19). This mutuality expresses the intimacy of God’s relationship with Israel.

New Testament. Inheritance language is taken up in the NT and expanded in a variety of ways. First and foremost, Jesus Christ is the “heir of all things,” the Son to whom the Father has given all authority in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18–20; Heb. 1:2–5). Through their union with Christ, believers share in Christ’s inheritance (Rom. 8:17), having been qualified by the Father to share in that inheritance (Col. 1:12). What believers inherit is described in various ways: the earth (Matt. 5:5), eternal life (Luke 10:25), the kingdom (1 Cor. 6:9–10; James 2:5), salvation (Heb. 1:14), blessing (Heb. 12:17; 1 Pet. 3:9). This inheritance was enacted by the death of Christ and sealed by his blood (Heb. 9:15–28). Believers experience the benefits of this inheritance through the Spirit now (Eph. 1:14, 18), but its fullness is reserved in heaven and awaits the consummation (1 Pet. 1:4–6).

The connection between the believer’s inheritance and the Spirit is especially prominent in Paul. In Gal. 4:1–7 Paul uses a combination of exodus and legal imagery to explain the gospel. Before Christ came, God’s people were heirs under the care of guardians and trustees. But once Christ came and redeemed them from under the law, they received their full inheritance as adopted sons and daughters. Central to that inheritance is the gift of the Spirit, who cries out, “Abba, Father.” It is this gift of the Spirit that definitively marks believers as sons and daughters rather than slaves. Because believers possess the Spirit as an inheritance in fulfillment of the promise to Abraham (Gal. 3:14; cf. Isa. 44:3–5), they have moved from bondage under the law to freedom in Christ (Gal. 5:1).

A wife of Ashhur, progenitor of Tekoa. She bore Zereth, Zohar, and Ethnan, whose names are associated with towns in southern Judah (1 Chron. 4:5, 7).

The location where Hadadezer, king of Zobah, and his commander, Shobach, regrouped after their defeat by Israel (2 Sam. 10:16). After David was informed, he took his troops to Helam, where a second battle ensued. The Israelites were victorious again, killing over forty thousand, including Shobach. The exact location is unknown. Some have identified it with Aleppo, but the better suggestion is to follow the LXX of Ezek. 47:16, which locates it between Damascus and Hamath.

A town in the territory of Asher from which the Canaanites were never expelled (Judg. 1:31). This name may be a spelling corruption of “Ahlab,” which occurs earlier in the verse, and therefore the same town, or more likely it is linked with Hebel of Josh. 19:29 (NET; NRSV: “Mahalab”), another town in the territory of Asher.

A district listed in Ezekiel’s lament over Tyre, known especially for the production and trade of wine (Ezek. 27:18). Helbon is to be associated with the modern town Halbun, located thirteen miles north of Damascus; this area is still known for viticulture.

(1) One of David’s commanders, commissioned to be head of the division of people in the twelfth month. The division consisted of twenty-four thousand and concerned all that came in and went out related to the armed services (1 Chron. 27:15). He was a Netophathite from the territory of Judah and from the line of Othniel, judge of Israel (see Judg. 3:9–10). Given the appearance of the names of the other eleven commanders in 1 Chron. 11:10–47, it is probable that Heled of 1 Chron. 11:30 and 2 Sam. 23:29 (KJV, NRSV: “Heleb”) should be equated with Heldai. (2) A returned Babylonian exile who was to participate in the crowning of Joshua, the high priest (Zech. 6:10). The gold and silver for the crown were to be taken from him. “Helem” in 6:14 (KJV, ESV) probably refers to the same person (so NIV, NRSV).

The name “Heled” (2 Sam. 23:29; KJV, RSV: “Heleb”) is likely an alternate for Heldai, who is listed among David’s men (1 Chron. 27:15). The names of the other men from 1 Chron. 27 appear in parallel lists in 2 Sam. 23; 1 Chron. 11:30, allowing for the connection. See also Heldai.

(1) The ancestor of the Helekite clan of Gilead, a smaller tribe of Manasseh (Num. 26:30; Josh. 17:2). Hebrew inscriptions from the eighth to seventh centuries BC mention both an individual and a location with this name, meaning “allotment.” (2) A place mentioned in Ezekiel’s oracle against Tyre (27:11; NRSV, ESV: “Helech”). The LXX, followed by the KJV and the ASV, translate this as the Hebrew noun for “army” with the second-person suffix attached: “your army.” Based on the Hebrew consonants, this is a possibility, but it is an unlikely interpretation. Helech is more likely a city from which Tyre hired mercenaries to fight in its army. It is located north of the Taurus Mountains in southeast Asia Minor, present-day Turkey.

The name “Heled” (2 Sam. 23:29; KJV, RSV: “Heleb”) is likely an alternate for Heldai, who is listed among David’s men (1 Chron. 27:15). The names of the other men from 1 Chron. 27 appear in parallel lists in 2 Sam. 23; 1 Chron. 11:30, allowing for the connection. See also Heldai.

(1) The ancestor of the Helekite clan of Gilead, a smaller tribe of Manasseh (Num. 26:30; Josh. 17:2). Hebrew inscriptions from the eighth to seventh centuries BC mention both an individual and a location with this name, meaning “allotment.” (2) A place mentioned in Ezekiel’s oracle against Tyre (27:11; NRSV, ESV: “Helech”). The LXX, followed by the KJV and the ASV, translate this as the Hebrew noun for “army” with the second-person suffix attached: “your army.” Based on the Hebrew consonants, this is a possibility, but it is an unlikely interpretation. Helech is more likely a city from which Tyre hired mercenaries to fight in its army. It is located north of the Taurus Mountains in southeast Asia Minor, present-day Turkey.

(1) The ancestor of the Helekite clan of Gilead, a smaller tribe of Manasseh (Num. 26:30; Josh. 17:2). Hebrew inscriptions from the eighth to seventh centuries BC mention both an individual and a location with this name, meaning “allotment.” (2) A place mentioned in Ezekiel’s oracle against Tyre (27:11; NRSV, ESV: “Helech”). The LXX, followed by the KJV and the ASV, translate this as the Hebrew noun for “army” with the second-person suffix attached: “your army.” Based on the Hebrew consonants, this is a possibility, but it is an unlikely interpretation. Helech is more likely a city from which Tyre hired mercenaries to fight in its army. It is located north of the Taurus Mountains in southeast Asia Minor, present-day Turkey.

(1) An Asherite and the father of Zophah, Imna, Shelesh, and Amal (1 Chron. 7:35). (2) One of the returning exiles from Babylon sent with gold and silver supplies for the temple and the crown of the high priest (Zech. 6:14). This probably is the same person as Heldai in Zech. 6:10 (so NIV, NRSV).

The first town mentioned as part of the southern boundary for the territory of the tribe of Naphtali (Josh. 19:33). It is mentioned in the Talmud, but its modern identification is uncertain. Some have associated it with Khirbet ‘Irbadah, which would make it near Mount Tabor and close to the point of intersection for the tribes of Manasseh, Naphtali, and Zebulun.

(1) An Ephraimite among David’s mighty men, he was the commander of an army division of twenty-four thousand soldiers. He is identified as a Paltite/Pelonite (2 Sam. 23:26; 1 Chron. 11:27; 27:10). (2) The son of Azariah, a Judahite (1 Chron. 2:39).

An otherwise unknown person in Jesus’ genealogy mentioned only in Luke 3:23 as the father of Joseph. Scholars have proposed various solutions for the differences between Luke’s (3:23–38) and Matthew’s (1:1–17) genealogies for Jesus. Tertullian suggested that Luke gives Joseph’s ancestry and Matthew gives Mary’s ancestry (which does not fit Matthew’s “begat” formula). Annius of Viterbo suggested the reverse: Matthew gives Joseph’s, and Luke gives Mary’s (which does not fit Luke’s explicit claim to be giving Joseph’s). Others have suggested that Luke gives Joseph’s natural ancestry via Heli, and Matthew gives Joseph’s legal ancestry via Jacob (which does not fit Matthew’s “begat” formula). Perhaps a better suggestion is that Matthew gives Joseph’s natural ancestry via birth to Jacob, and Luke gives Joseph’s legal ancestry (via adoption, levirate marriage, or other legal arrangement) by Heli. Julius Africanus (AD 170–245) had an unnecessarily complicated version of this scenario.

The name “Heliopolis” is Greek for “city of the sun.” (1) The Greek name for the city referred to in Hebrew as “On” or “Aven” (Gen. 41:45, 50; 46:20; cf. Ezek. 30:17) (the Hebrew spellings are similar). It is one of the oldest cities in Lower Egypt, dating from the predynastic period. Its ruins are found at Tel Al-Hisn, Ain Shams, and Matariyeh, which are about ten miles northeast of Cairo.

Heliopolis was the center of worship for Re, the sun god, and Atum, the creator god. The priests of Heliopolis were among the most powerful in Egypt. They officiated at all the major festivals and produced one of the major versions of Egyptian religion and mythology. The prominence of the priesthood is reflected in the description of Joseph marrying Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera, the priest of On (Gen. 41:45, 50; 46:20). The Egyptians called the city by a name that means “city of pillars.” Its temples were embellished with many obelisks, to catch the first rays of the morning sun. Jeremiah prophesied the destruction of the obelisks and temples in Heliopolis (Jer. 43:13; cf. Ezek. 30:17). The city flourished as a seat of learning until it was eclipsed by Alexandria.

(2) The Greek name for Baalbek in Lebanon.

The head of the priestly family of Meremoth during the high priesthood of Joiakim and the governorship of Nehemiah (Neh. 12:15).

This town was allotted to Asher as part of its inheritance and later was passed on to the Gershonites to serve as a Levitical city (Josh. 19:25; 21:31). Its location is unknown but probably was near the eastern border of Asher. It is referred to as “Hukok” in 1 Chron. 6:75.

The plot of ground near the pool in Gibeon where twelve men each from the armies of Joab and of Abner perished at each other’s hands (2 Sam. 2:16). Although the initial match ended in a draw, the ensuing battle, which was part of the war between David and Ish-Bosheth after Saul’s death, ended with a resounding victory for David’s army.

The place where the lost are assigned by God to eternal punishment of both body and soul (Matt. 10:28). This agony of eternal torment in hell is the greatest of all possible tragedies.

At times, there is confusion about this topic, since the English word “hell” is used in different ways in our English Bibles. Sometimes it is used to translate the Hebrew word she’ol or the Greek word hadēs, which refer generally to the place of the departed dead. Other times it is used more properly to translate the Aramaic-derived Greek word geenna, which refers to the place of the eternal punishment of the wicked following the final judgment. This second usage will be the focus of this present study.

This topic of the afterlife unfolded only gradually in Scripture. “Gehenna” originally referred to the Valley of Hinnom near Jerusalem, the location of the notorious sacrificial offerings of children by fire to the god Molek by Ahaz (2 Chron. 28:3) and Manasseh (2 Chron. 33:6). Later, the meaning of this term was extended to the place of fiery punishment in general. Still later, the geographic location of this place of punishment was shifted to under the earth, but the idea of fiery torment continued. By NT times, the Pharisees clearly believed in the punishment of the wicked in the afterlife.

It is primarily in the teachings of Jesus that the reality of a place of eternal punishment comes into clear focus. Jesus describes hell as involving unquenchable fire (Matt. 18:8–9; Mark 9:42–43, 48), a place where the worm does not die (Mark 9:48). Jesus also pictures the extreme anguish of those who suffer the ultimate punishment of being “thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matt. 8:12).

The idea of a severe eternal punishment for the lost is also taught by the apostles. At the return of Christ, those living outside a proper relationship with God will experience sudden destruction (1 Thess. 5:3) when the angels will come “in blazing fire” and “punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus” (2 Thess. 1:6–9). The author of Hebrews speaks of the “fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God” (Heb. 10:27). Revelation describes how “the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever” (Rev. 14:11), and how the ungodly will be cast into “the fiery lake of burning sulfur” (21:8).

One significant controversy related to this topic is annihilation or conditional immortality (taught by, e.g., Seventh-Day Adventists and Jehovah’s Witnesses), where the lost cease to exist, either immediately following death or after a limited period of punishment. Appeals for this view are found in the language applied to the wicked such as “death” (Rom. 6:23; James 5:20), “destruction” (Matt. 7:13; 10:28), and “perishing” (John 3:16). Yet other Scriptures speak of the place of punishment as being where “the worms that eat them will not die, the fire that burns them will not be quenched” (Isa. 66:24), and where “God’s wrath remains on them [present tense]” (John 3:36), and as being “everlasting,” “eternal,” or “for ever” (Isa. 33:14; Matt. 18:8; 25:46; 2 Thess. 1:9; Rev. 20:10). Historic orthodoxy has generally maintained that the bliss of the redeemed and the punishment of the unsaved will continue for all eternity.

Another controversy involves universalism, the belief that ultimately all will be saved following death, possibly after a period of punishment. Yet this view, as attractive as it might be to human nature, falls short of the teachings of Scripture about “the coming wrath” for the ungodly (Matt. 3:7). The Roman Catholic belief in purgatory and the practice of praying for the dead represent other denials of the standard position that one’s eternal destiny is inevitably fixed at the time of death.

Another question involves how literally or figuratively to take the language of unquenchable fire and worms that do not die (Mark 9:48). Will the fire be the same as the fire that we know on earth? And will there be literal worms? It is best to conclude simply that such punishment will be the worst that we can possibly imagine. Jesus clearly and emphatically warns about the dangers of hell as the greatest of all tragedies, characterized by “weeping and gnashing of teeth” (an expression found seven times in the Gospels).

There is also the question of whether there will be degrees of punishment in hell. In Mark 12:40 Jesus implies that there will be degrees of punishment, telling of hypocrites who will receive greater condemnation, and in Luke 12:47–48 speaking of some who will “be beaten with many blows,” whereas others who have less knowledge of their master’s will will “be beaten with few blows.” The underlying principle both in the degrees of reward in glory and in the degrees of punishment in hell is this: “From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked” (Luke 12:48).

Traditionally, the noun “Hellenism” refers to the phenomenon of so-called Greek cultural influence, especially in the eastern Mediterranean, in the aftermath of Alexander the Great. As Alexander conquered the Near East, he worked to establish Greek culture and institutions within the conquered cities and areas. Over time, native populations adopted Greek culture in varying degrees. The adjective “Hellenistic” thus represents something as a part of this phenomenon, usually indicating some form of a “native” culture having a veneer of “Greek” culture. Although differences exist, scholars of antiquity understand the Hellenistic period to commence shortly after Alexander the Great, toward the end of the fourth century BC, and to conclude sometime in the several centuries after Christ.

Cultural Mixing and Conflicts

The traditional approach mentioned above requires some nuancing. Hellenism cannot properly be understood as the phenomenon of Greek cultural influence. No pure strain of Greek culture existed that could influence pure strains of native cultures. Even before Alexander, various cultural practices of the Near East (Palestine, Mesopotamia, etc.) had impacted people among the Greeks farther West. Furthermore, cultures are not active agents. Rather, people who engage in various inherited social practices (including patterns of thinking), often associated with some specific ethnic group or culture, are the active agents who transmit practices, adopt new ones, influence other peoples’ practices, and thus effect “cultural mixing.”

Many scholars now understand Hellenism as simply the mixture of cultural practices throughout the Mediterranean in the aftermath of Alexander. It happens that much of our ancient data, such as extant writings and architecture, reflect a mixture in which features usually perceived as Greek have greater prominence. It is best to keep in mind that elites and authority figures who usually produced the extant data (writings, buildings, etc.) often desired to associate themselves with the new ruling power as a way of maintaining friendly relations with the new power. In this case, such elites might adopt, and make a show of adopting, the practices associated with Alexander and the various “Greek” institutions that he established in cities he conquered.

Another set of ancient data also depicts the opposite picture: an essential conflict between native peoples and the new, foreign, Greek-Hellenistic culture. In this case too, however, one must keep in mind the strategic nature of a person adopting stances and practices of overt resistance and representing such conflict as a fundamental reality. One cannot generalize about the nature and extent of Hellenistic cultural mixing. It varied widely between different areas and among various types of people. Furthermore, many people likely did not engage in this mixing of cultural practices with conscious reflection on it. Even with such qualifications, in this understanding the following constitute the basic elements of Hellenism: the spread of Greek as a lingua franca across the Near East; the establishment by Alexander and spread of “Greek” civic institutions such as the gymnasium/school; the phenomenon of various classes of people either associating or not with the new Greek civic institutions; and the study of Classical Greek literature among the educated in the Near East. To these basic elements, of course, one could add a host of other assorted practices.

Hellenism and Judaism

Especially because of how certain ancient Jewish specialists represented key moments in Jewish history (e.g., the producers of 1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees), scholars traditionally depict an essential difference between Judaism and Hellenism. Some deep essence of Judaism existed that fundamentally conflicted with the deep essence of Hellenism and Greek culture. Whereas Judaism fundamentally conceived of the body and the universe in a unitary way and taught the resurrection of the body, Greek culture fundamentally operated with a Platonic-dualistic view of the body and universe and taught the immortality of the soul. Whereas Judaism was essentially conservative and involved keeping its laws, which kept Jews separate from the broader world, Hellenism was essentially liberal and prized breaking down traditional barriers and assimilating everyone to universal “Greek culture.” Scholars have often identified the truest form of ancient Judaism with the writings that overtly represent a conflict between faithful Jews and Hellenistic sympathizers. To the extent that an ancient Jew “adopted” elements of Hellenistic culture, he or she was a syncretizer who distorted Judaism. Eventually, a major military and social conflict was sparked: the Maccabean Revolt. Pious faithful Jews went to war to protect their essential Judaism against the dangers of Hellenizing Jews, whose collaboration with Hellenistic rulers eventually brought about laws against being Jewish. Understanding ancient Judaism and the Jewish context of early Christianity involves grasping the historical and theological issues generated by the fundamental conflict between Judaism and Hellenism.

Although elements of the traditional approach outlined above have validity, it must be sharply qualified in various areas. For one thing, it describes the situation in terms of the explanation of a minority among ancient Jewish intellectuals. In addition to not representing the diverse spectrum of other Jewish elites and intellectuals, it certainly does not approximate the views of most average Jews. The conception of Judaism as a monolithic entity also misses the mark. Jews who believed in the immortality of the soul and construed the world in terms of Stoic philosophical categories were no less Jewish than Jews who rejected such categories. They were simply different. Most important, like many other ancient Jewish intellectuals, the most vehemently anti-Hellenistic Jews wrote in Greek, using literary forms and strategies common within Greek literature. Even Jewish writings written in Hebrew manifest Hellenistic features. For example, some of the Dead Sea Scrolls work with medical theories predicated upon Classical Greek views of the body. One should not think that because something is Jewish, it is less likely to be Hellenistic.

All forms of ancient Judaism of which we are aware were Hellenized to some degree. To some extent they manifested a mixture of cultural practices, even at the level of patterns of thought. Thus, all forms of Judaism, including that practiced by Jesus, the authors of the NT, and other early Christians, were to some extent Hellenistic. Setting Jesus and the writings of the NT within the broad matrix of Jewish-Hellenistic practices and ways of understanding the world aids in understanding them.

For example, Jewish apocalyptic thought and literature developed and continued taking shape among Jewish specialists within Hellenistic cultural mixing. Its semidualistic views of the world along with its various conceptions of the afterlife make sense as part of broader Hellenistic views. Jesus and other early Christians explicitly taught and wrote about God’s salvation in Christ within such Hellenistic-Jewish apocalyptic matrices. Thus, Paul’s apocalyptic conceptions of the afterlife, redefined around Christ, in 1 Cor. 15 involve understandings of the resurrection body in categories common to Hellenistic philosophy. It will be a body composed of the lighter heavenly substances associated with the upper divine realm and not the heavier flesh-and-blood substances of the lower world, just as most Hellenistic philosophical sensitivities conceived afterlife possibilities for existence. In this way, Paul’s Jewish apocalyptic belief of the God of Israel’s end-time blessing of resurrection, which happened first and foremost in Christ, also completely involved broader Hellenistic views. Jesus and early Christians lived in the Hellenistic world of long-standing and continuous cultural mixing.

The Hellenists (hellēnistai), or “Hellenistic Jews,” mentioned in Acts 6:1 are Greek-speaking Jewish Christians who immigrated back to Israel and are distinguished from the native-born, Aramaic-speaking “Hebraic Jews.” The two groups are involved in a dispute over the distribution of food among widows. The principal spokesperson of the Hellenists is Stephen, who is later martyred for his faith (Acts 7; his opponents are also Hellenistic Jews [6:9]). The same Greek word is used to refer to Greek-speaking Jews in Antioch (9:29) and to non-Christian, Greek-speaking Gentiles (11:20; NIV: “Greeks”). Paul himself was a Hellenistic Jew, born in Tarsus in Cilicia (21:37; 22:3). It is evident from Paul’s life that being a Hellenist did not necessarily mean he was less committed to Jewish laws and customs (see Phil. 3:5–6).

The Hellenists (hellēnistai), or “Hellenistic Jews,” mentioned in Acts 6:1 are Greek-speaking Jewish Christians who immigrated back to Israel and are distinguished from the native-born, Aramaic-speaking “Hebraic Jews.” The two groups are involved in a dispute over the distribution of food among widows. The principal spokesperson of the Hellenists is Stephen, who is later martyred for his faith (Acts 7; his opponents are also Hellenistic Jews [6:9]). The same Greek word is used to refer to Greek-speaking Jews in Antioch (9:29) and to non-Christian, Greek-speaking Gentiles (11:20; NIV: “Greeks”). Paul himself was a Hellenistic Jew, born in Tarsus in Cilicia (21:37; 22:3). It is evident from Paul’s life that being a Hellenist did not necessarily mean he was less committed to Jewish laws and customs (see Phil. 3:5–6).

The father of Eliab, who was the tribal leader of Zebulun during the wilderness wanderings (Num. 1:9; 2:7; 7:24, 29; 10:16).

Among the gifts divinely distributed to the church is the gift of helping others (1 Cor. 12:28). The apostles acknowledged friends from whom they and others received help, including Apollos (Acts 18:7), Phoebe (Rom. 16:1–2), and Silas (1 Pet. 5:12).

In Gen. 2:18, 20 the KJV translates the Hebrew phrase ’ezer kenegdo, used to describe Eve’s relationship toward Adam, as “help meet.” The NIV translates the words as “a helper suitable” (for Adam), but finding a precise English equivalent is difficult in part because this is the only place in the Bible where these two words occur together. Other translations prefer “helper who is just right” (NLT) or “helper as his partner” (NRSV). The Hebrew word ’ezer (“helper”) is often used of God or an aiding human prince or army, and thus it does not denote subordination (e.g., Ps. 30:10). The Hebrew word kenegdo implies mutuality, matching, or correspondence. Those words together make Eve a “suitable helper” (cf. NET: “a companion who corresponds to him”). The disagreement regarding appropriate gender roles makes this a hotly debated text. See also Helper.

In Gen. 2:18–25 the lone man is provided with a “helper.” This is not necessarily an unromantic view of the marriage relationship (cf. Gen. 1:27–28a), but the main thought is of companionship and partnership (cf. Eccles. 4:9–11). Also, the word “helper” does not require a subservient or demeaning function but rather can include active intervention, such as God himself renders (e.g., Ps. 33:20: “[The Lord] is our help and our shield”). The man needs help to carry out the mandate of Gen. 1:28b, so a wide-ranging helping role is in view. The helper must be “suitable for him” (Gen. 2:18b), that is, come alongside him, as his opposite and complement, and so no mere lowly assistant will be adequate for the task. (See also Help Meet.)

The psalms portray God as the helper of his needy people (Pss. 10:14; 30:10; 54:4; 70:5; 72:12; 146:5). The exodus deliverance is described by using the motif of God as “my helper” (Exod. 18:4). On the other hand, when God acts to judge wicked nations, no human helper (or ally) can provide protection (Isa. 30:5; Jer. 47:4; Ezek. 30:8). In the crisis of persecution forecast in Dan. 11:34, the “little help” (= helper) may be Judas Maccabeus, though the main point is that the godly will not be totally bereft of divine support. Among the charismatically gifted individuals who are to act for the common good listed by Paul in 1 Cor. 12:28 are those able to help others, though the kind of help in mind (distinguished from healing and administration) is not specified.

Among the gifts divinely distributed to the church is the gift of helping others (1 Cor. 12:28). The apostles acknowledged friends from whom they and others received help, including Apollos (Acts 18:7), Phoebe (Rom. 16:1–2), and Silas (1 Pet. 5:12).

In Deut. 19:5 the KJV translates the Hebrew word ’ets as “helve,” an archaic word that refers to the handle of an ax or weapon.

(1) In the Bible, usually the bottom of a robe. For example, the high priest’s robe had a hem that included golden bells and pomegranates sewn onto it so that they made noise when the high priest moved, presumably to let people know that the priest was still alive when he entered the holy of holies (Exod. 28:33–35; 39:24–26). Often, touching the hem of a robe was considered a sign of submission (such as Saul grabbing Samuel’s in 1 Sam. 15:27). Similarly, it could be an act of entreaty by an inferior toward a superior, as in Zech. 8:23: “In those days ten people from all languages and nations will take firm hold of one Jew by the hem of his robe and say, ‘Let us go with you, because we have heard that God is with you.’ ” The Gospels describe a woman who was healed simply by touching the hem of Jesus’ robe (Matt. 9:20 // Mark 5:27 // Luke 8:44).

(2) A verb to describe the action of surrounding or trapping someone (Ps. 139:5; Hab. 1:4).

A son of Lotan and a grandson of Seir (Gen. 36:22). The NIV renders the name as “Homam,” based on the parallel account in 1 Chron. 1:39, whereas the KJV follows the Hebrew and opts for “Hemam.”

(1) A worship leader during the time of King David (1 Chron. 16:42), a descendant of Levi through Kohath and Joel (1 Chron. 6:33). Heman was one of King David’s seers, which involved prophesying as well as musical worship (1 Chron. 25:1, 4–5). Two of Heman’s famous colleagues were Asaph and Jeduthun. (2) A descendant of Judah through Zerah (1 Chron. 2:6) whose name appears in the inscription of Ps. 88 as “Heman the Ezrahite.” He was known for his wisdom (1 Kings 4:31). Some have suggested that he is the same person as in 1 Chron. 6:33; 16:42; 25:1, 4–5).

A Hittite city strategically positioned on the Orontes River and the main trade route running south from Asia Minor. Located about halfway between Damascus and Aleppo, it is frequently mentioned with reference to Israel’s northern border—“the entrance to Hamath” or Lebo Hamath (Num. 13:21; 1 Kings 8:65). David received tribute from its king (2 Sam. 8:9–10), and Solomon built storage cities in the area (2 Chron. 8:4). During the exile, some Israelites settled there (Isa. 11:11), and some of its inhabitants were similarly transported to Samaria (2 Kings 17:24).

The first son of Dishon and a grandson of Seir the Horite who lived in the land of Edom (Gen. 36:26). In some versions of 1 Chron. 1:41, in the genealogy of Esau, he is called “Hamran” (NKJV, NRSV; see NIV mg.).

The KJV twice uses “hemlock” to refer to a bitter plant, each time translating a different Hebrew word. The word in Hos. 10:4, ro’sh (NIV: “poisonous weeds”), is translated as “gall, venom, poison” elsewhere in the KJV, and the word in Amos 6:12, la’anah (NIV: “bitterness”), is translated elsewhere as “wormwood.”

The word “hemorrhage” is sometimes used to refer to a “flow of blood” or “discharge of blood” related to a woman’s reproductive organs (Lev. 12:7; cf. Matt. 9:20), which rendered her ritually unclean. The impurity of menstruation made a woman unclean for seven days and was transmitted to anyone or anything she touched (Lev. 15:19–24). Thus, sexual intercourse with a woman during this period was prohibited (Lev. 18:19; 20:18; cf. Ezek. 22:10). A woman suffering from irregular or prolonged bleeding was considered clean only after the bleeding had ceased for seven days (Lev. 15:25–28). Jesus healed a woman who had been suffering from bleeding for twelve years (Matt. 9:20–22; Mark 5:25–34; Luke 8:43–48). Instead of Jesus becoming unclean by her touching his garment, the power of his holiness cleansed her. The woman, who had been excluded from worshiping in the temple due to her physical “uncleanness” (Lev. 15:31), was transformed by grace and now a member of Jesus’ new family.

Hemorrhoids result from the painful swelling of veins in the region of the anus, often accompanied with bleeding. God may have inflicted the Philistines with this condition—what the biblical writer calls “tumors” (1 Sam. 5:6, 9, 12; 6:4–5, 11, 17)—as punishment for capturing the ark of the covenant from the Israelites and setting it beside their agricultural god, Dagon. But most scholars now presume that a form of bubonic plague is being described. The KJV translation “emerods” is probably responsible for this traditional interpretation.

(1) The son of Zephaniah, one of four men memorialized by the priestly crowns that were to reside in the temple (Zech. 6:14). (2) The bird, a domestic fowl, that Jesus uses as a metaphor to describe God’s desire to protect the children of Jerusalem like the hen does her chicks (Matt. 23:37; Luke 13:34). Unlike chicks, which would readily accept such protection, Jerusalem is known for its stubborn refusal. See also Chicken.

Hena appears beside Ivvah in the speech of the Assyrian field commander (2 Kings 18:34; 19:13; Isa. 37:13) to King Hezekiah. Interpretations of this term range from a city (possibly Anah on the middle Euphrates near Damascus), to a verb meaning “sent wandering” (Targum) or “displaced” (Symmachus’s Greek translation), to a deity identified with the sixth station of the moon. Difficulties are present with each interpretation.

A Levite family among the returnees with Zerubbabel (Ezra 3:9). Members of this family participated in the rebuilding of Jerusalem under the direction of Nehemiah (Neh. 3:18, 24) and sealed the covenant with God following Ezra’s public reading of the law (Neh. 10:9).

Henna blossoms are fragrant flowers that are sometimes used to produce perfume (Song 1:14; 4:13; KJV: “camphire”). The henna plant is also used to create dyes. See also Camphire; Flowers; Plants.

(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.

(1) A son of Gilead and eponymous ancestor of the Hepherite clan in Manasseh (Num. 26:32–33; 27:1; Josh. 17:2–3). (2) A son of Ashhur from the tribe of Judah (1 Chron. 4:6). (3) One of David’s mighty men (1 Chron. 11:36). (4) One of thirty-one Canaanite royal cities destroyed by Joshua (Josh. 12:17), which later became one of the territories of King Solomon’s deputy Ben-Hesed (1 Kings 4:10).

(1) A son of Gilead and eponymous ancestor of the Hepherite clan in Manasseh (Num. 26:32–33; 27:1; Josh. 17:2–3). (2) A son of Ashhur from the tribe of Judah (1 Chron. 4:6). (3) One of David’s mighty men (1 Chron. 11:36). (4) One of thirty-one Canaanite royal cities destroyed by Joshua (Josh. 12:17), which later became one of the territories of King Solomon’s deputy Ben-Hesed (1 Kings 4:10).

(1) The mother of King Manasseh of Judah and presumably the wife of Hezekiah (2 Kings 21:1). (2) A symbolic name, meaning “my delight is in her,” that God gives to Jerusalem after the return from exile (Isa. 62:4). The name provides a contrast with Jerusalem’s earlier names, “Deserted” and “Desolate.” It is God’s declaration that he will once again take delight in Jerusalem.

A messenger commissioned to deliver a proclamation on behalf of a royal personage or God. King Nebuchadnezzar’s herald announces that all subjects must worship a golden statue or else be thrown into a blazing furnace (Dan. 3:4). God instructs Habakkuk to record his oracle regarding the future destruction of Babylon on a tablet so that it might be delivered by a herald (Hab. 2:2). Paul was appointed as an apostle and a herald of the gospel to the Gentiles (1 Tim. 2:7; 2 Tim. 1:11).

A group of domesticated animals. In the OT, a herd (baqar; generally cattle and/or oxen) is often distinguished from a flock (tso’n; sheep and/or goats), and Israelites often had both (Deut. 15:19). From a herd, an Israelite could take an animal to eat (Gen. 18:7) or sacrifice (Lev. 1:2–3). In the NT, the Greek word commonly translated “herd” (agelē) is used only of swine (Matt. 8:30; Mark 5:11; Luke 8:32). A “flock” (poimēn) is made up of sheep or goats.

English versions generally use the term “herdsman” or “herder” when referring to those who care for cattle, preferring the term “shepherd” when the care of sheep is in view. Herders usually were hired workers who protected their employers’ livestock and led the herd to grazing areas. In at least two biblical instances (Gen. 13:7–8; 26:20), quarreling arose between herders. Amos is referred to as a herdsman in some translations (7:14 KJV, NRSV).

English versions generally use the term “herdsman” or “herder” when referring to those who care for cattle, preferring the term “shepherd” when the care of sheep is in view. Herders usually were hired workers who protected their employers’ livestock and led the herd to grazing areas. In at least two biblical instances (Gen. 13:7–8; 26:20), quarreling arose between herders. Amos is referred to as a herdsman in some translations (7:14 KJV, NRSV).

(1) A mountainous region, along with Aijalon and Shaalbim, inhabited by the Amo-rites. The tribe of Dan was unable to expel them from this region during the conquest of Canaan (Judg. 1:34–35). (2) The region through which Gideon returned after defeating Zebah and Zalmunnah. Gideon captured the two Midianite kings and routed their armies (Judg. 8:13). (3) Part of the name of the location of Joshua’s burial place. The name is given as “Timnath Heres” in Judg. 2:9. It was located near Mount Gaash in the territory of Ephraim. The town is also described as Timnath Serah in Josh. 19:50; 24:30.

A Levite and a descendant of Asaph, he was among those who returned to Jerusalem after the exile (1 Chron. 9:15).

The English word “heresy” comes from the Greek hairesis, which is used in the NT to refer to a sect, party, or school. It is used to describe the Pharisees and the Sadducees (Acts 5:17; 15:5; 26:5), and Christians are referred to in this way, although only by outsiders (24:5, 14; 28:22). Paul strongly condemns the tendency for Christian communities to separate into factions, and he even lists factions as an obvious act of the sinful nature (1 Cor. 11:19; Gal. 5:20; cf. Titus 3:10). When using this word, he seems primarily concerned with the fractious attitudes of people in the church who violate Christian unity rather than incorrect doctrine.

It is in the later NT writings that we see the word “heresy” used in connection with incorrect belief that is “destructive,” bringing “condemnation” to those that teach it (2 Pet. 2:1–3). The connotations from this passage—heresy as a false teaching—became the dominant meaning for the word. Perhaps the use of the word “heresy” in this fashion came from the common condemnations by the early church of both false teachings and schismatics who separated themselves from the wider Christian community.

As generally used today, the word “heresy” indicates a deviation from accepted Christian teaching and belief extensive enough to be considered an invalid and incompatible interpretation of the faith. Heretics (those who believe or expound heresies) claim an allegiance to the Christian faith, but they hold convictions that are perceived by the church universal to fundamentally alter the faith as received from the apostles.

Most heresies involve a misunderstanding of the person of Christ or the relations of the persons within the Trinity. For example, a group of early believers who followed the teacher Arius taught that Jesus was the “first creation” of God the Father, and that he was really only quasi-divine. This may seem like a subtle and irrelevant distinction to some, but it has the effect of making God ultimately unknown to the world, since the incarnation was not really God in the flesh, and Jesus is only another pale intermediary rather than true Lord. Councils of church leaders (bishops) declared Arianism incorrect at the Council of Nicaea in AD 325, and thus it is considered a heresy.

There is general agreement among the branches of Christianity (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant) about the falsehood of many heresies that have appeared in the history of Christianity, but there is still disagreement regarding some issues, as the Roman Catholic Church proclaimed Martin Luther a heretic in his lifetime. While the church certainly must remain eternally vigilant against the spread and acceptance of false and erroneous teachings, all too often the word “heresy” is used carelessly to reinforce the very divisions that Paul would have condemned.

The forested region into which David and his men fled from King Saul after being instructed by the prophet Gad to leave the stronghold of Moab (1 Sam. 22:5). The exact location is unknown, though perhaps from the association with David’s sojourn in the cave of Adullam, some scholars identify Hereth with nearby Kharas, which is between Adullam and Giloh.

That which is given or designated as an enduring possession or lot, sometimes as recompense. “Heritage” is the common translation in the KJV in many instances where more-recent versions read “inheritance” (e.g., Jer. 2:7; Joel 2:17; Mic. 2:2). Sometimes “heritage,” which is more abstract than “inheritance” in modern English, is preferred in modern versions to speak broadly of recompense, either for godliness (Ps. 61:5; Isa. 54:17; 58:14) or for ungodliness (Job 20:29; 31:2). Other times, “heritage” is chosen when the object in question is human (Pss. 94:5; 127:3; Isa. 47:6; Jer. 50:11), or when the lasting nature of the object is prominent (Pss. 135:12; 136:21–22).

Paul greets a certain Hermas, possibly a leader in one of the Roman household churches (Rom. 16:14). Another Roman Christian, a prophet, with the same name and perhaps the brother of Bishop Pius (c. AD 140–154), wrote Shepherd of Hermas.

(1) A Greek deity (equivalent to the Roman god Mercury) associated with science and eloquence, he was said to have appeared with the god Zeus around Lystra (Ovid, Metam. 8.611–724). A crowd in Lystra identified Paul as Hermes and Barnabas as Zeus after Paul healed a man who could not walk (Acts 14:8–12). (2) A Christian greeted by Paul (Rom. 16:14). He is not specified as Jewish (cf. Rom. 16:7, 11, 21), and in Rome the name “Hermes” was typical of (former) slaves.

Writings associated with the Greco-Egyptian deity Hermes Trismegistos, who was a combination of Hermes (the Greek god of eloquence and science) and Thot, an Egyptian moon god and scribe of the gods, whose title, meaning “the thrice greatest,” was added to the name. The Corpus hermeticum consists of seventeen philosophical and theological tractates, mostly ascribed to the god himself, who often is quoted instructing his son. These were probably first written in Greek from the second to fifth centuries AD. The earliest known manuscript contains tractates 1–14 and is probably from the eleventh century AD. Numerous references to and citations of lost Hermetic works are found in the church fathers, and other important finds come from Nag Hammadi. The Corpus hermeticum was once thought to predate Plato but now is seen as a later development from Platonic, Stoic, Neo-Pythagorean, and some Jewish ideas. The literature is fairly abstract overall, and questions remain as to whether the movement existed primarily as a school of thought or also included its own cultic community. Although no literary dependency is evident, the texts are relevant for NT studies because they illuminate the cultural milieu surrounding early church history and the composition of the NT.

The literature has affinities with Pauline and Johannine literature as well as with gnostic works. Regarding shared religious expression with the NT, God is called “light and life” (Corp. herm. 1.12; 13.18–19; cf. John 1:4, 9), and the idea of rebirth (palingenesia) appears (Corp. herm. 13; cf. John 3:3; Titus 3:5; 1 Pet. 1:23), as do the ideas of individual salvation and baptism. But death does not come because of sin (Corp. herm. 1.20; cf. Rom. 5:12), and the idea of incarnation is rejected (Corp. herm. 4.9). Similarities with cosmological ideas found in gnostic literature also appear: dualism between spirit and matter, creation of the material world as a tragic mistake, the physical body as evil, and salvation from the empirical world via knowledge (gnōsis).

An apostacized believer whom Paul names while writing from prison (2 Tim. 1:15). Paul claims that Hermogenes, Phygelus, and everyone else in the province of Asia have deserted him. Paul’s disappointment with Hermogenes is mentioned in the context of his exhortation not to be ashamed of suffering for the sake of the gospel.

The Hebrew plural khermonim (lit., “Hermons”) appears only in Ps. 42:6 (42:7 MT) and is rendered in the KJV as “Hermonites” (NIV: “heights of Hermon”) referring to the multiple peaks of Mount Hermon (cf. NASB). See also Hermon, Mount.

Several kings of the Jews, related by birth, had the name “Herod.” The Herods formed a royal dynasty that flourished during the time of Christ and the early church. The founder of the dynasty was Antipater, who was appointed by Caesar in 47 BC as procurator of Judea. The Herods, being partly Edomite (descended from Esau) as well as loyal servants of Rome, were never fully accepted by their Jewish subjects. The family history was characterized by lust, intrigue, and bloodshed. They opposed the Christian faith, sometimes violently, being responsible for the attempted murder of Jesus (Matt. 2:16), the beheading of John the Baptist (Matt. 14:1–12), and the execution of the apostle James (Acts 12:2).

(1) Herod I (Herod the Great), son of Antipater, known as King Herod (Matt. 2:1; Luke 1:5). He ruled Palestine in the years 37–4 BC with Roman consent. A skillful politician, he managed to retain the favor of Rome by deftly switching allegiances when necessary. A capable ruler in some respects, he engaged in extensive building works. His finest project was the beautification of the temple, which he hoped would win Jewish favor. The rabbis would later say, “Whoever has not seen Herod’s building has not seen anything beautiful.”

His rule, however, was marred by paranoia, suspicion, and cruel jealousy. He had some of his wives and sons killed for suspected plotting. In Matthew’s Gospel he is visited by wise men looking for “one who has been born king of the Jews.” Subsequently, he massacred the male infants of Bethlehem, trying to rid himself of this new, royal challenger (Matt. 2:1–11). Upon his death, his kingdom was divided among three of his sons, Herod Antipas, Herod Archelaus, and Herod Philip.

(2) Herod Antipas, son of Herod the Great, also known simply as Herod or as Herod the tetrarch (Matt. 14:1; Luke 3:19). He was given jurisdiction over Galilee and Perea, which he ruled from 4 BC to AD 39 (Luke 3:1). For this reason, when Pilate heard that Jesus came from Galilee, he sent him to Antipas for questioning (Luke 23:6–12).

He is infamous for his role in the death of John the Baptist, which later haunted him (Matt. 14:1–12; Mark 6:14–29). Jesus referred to him as “that fox,” alluding to his predatory destructiveness for having killed John the Baptist, who criticized him for taking his half brother’s wife, Herodias, in marriage. He also sought to kill Jesus (Luke 13:31–32). Jesus warned the disciples of the yeast of Herod (Mark 8:15). Yeast was a metaphor sometimes used to describe how evil spreads and corrupts the whole person, perhaps a reference to Herod’s lust for Herodias and his murderous opposition to God’s word and Son. (See also Antipas.)

(3) Herod Archelaus, ethnarch of Judea, Samaria, and Idumea (4 BC–AD 6) and son of Herod the Great (Matt. 2:22). (See also Archelaus.)

(4) Herod Philip, son of Herod the Great and Cleopatra of Jerusalem; he was tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis in the years 4 BC–AD 34 (Luke 3:1). He rebuilt Paneas and named it “Caesarea Philippi” after the emperor and himself (Matt. 16:13; Mark 8:27). Apparently, he married his niece Salome III, the daughter of Herodias and his half brother Herod son of Mariamne II.

(5) Herod (Philip), son of Herod the Great and Mariamne II, he was married to Herodias, who left him for his half brother Antipas (Matt. 14:3; Mark 6:17; Luke 3:19). Though sharing a common name, this is a different son of Herod the Great than the Herod Philip of Luke 3:1.

(6) Herod Agrippa I, grandson of Herod the Great, also called “King Herod” in Scripture (Acts 12:1). At the height of his power (r. AD 37–44), he ruled an area coextensive with that of his grandfather. He persecuted the early church, killing James the brother of John. Encouraged by the Jews, he imprisoned Peter, intending to put him on trial, until an angel of God miraculously intervened to free him. He died prematurely in Caesarea when struck down for not giving glory to God (Acts 12:20–25).

(7) Herod Agrippa II (reigned in Chalcis AD 48–52, in Iturea AD 52–c. 93), the son of Herod Agrippa I. Prompted by the governor Festus, he gave audience to the apostle Paul to make his defense. He rejected Paul’s attempt to persuade him of the truth of the Christian faith (Acts 25:13–27; 26).

Several kings of the Jews, related by birth, had the name “Herod.” The Herods formed a royal dynasty that flourished during the time of Christ and the early church. The founder of the dynasty was Antipater, who was appointed by Caesar in 47 BC as procurator of Judea. The Herods, being partly Edomite (descended from Esau) as well as loyal servants of Rome, were never fully accepted by their Jewish subjects. The family history was characterized by lust, intrigue, and bloodshed. They opposed the Christian faith, sometimes violently, being responsible for the attempted murder of Jesus (Matt. 2:16), the beheading of John the Baptist (Matt. 14:1–12), and the execution of the apostle James (Acts 12:2).

(1) Herod I (Herod the Great), son of Antipater, known as King Herod (Matt. 2:1; Luke 1:5). He ruled Palestine in the years 37–4 BC with Roman consent. A skillful politician, he managed to retain the favor of Rome by deftly switching allegiances when necessary. A capable ruler in some respects, he engaged in extensive building works. His finest project was the beautification of the temple, which he hoped would win Jewish favor. The rabbis would later say, “Whoever has not seen Herod’s building has not seen anything beautiful.”

His rule, however, was marred by paranoia, suspicion, and cruel jealousy. He had some of his wives and sons killed for suspected plotting. In Matthew’s Gospel he is visited by wise men looking for “one who has been born king of the Jews.” Subsequently, he massacred the male infants of Bethlehem, trying to rid himself of this new, royal challenger (Matt. 2:1–11). Upon his death, his kingdom was divided among three of his sons, Herod Antipas, Herod Archelaus, and Herod Philip.

(2) Herod Antipas, son of Herod the Great, also known simply as Herod or as Herod the tetrarch (Matt. 14:1; Luke 3:19). He was given jurisdiction over Galilee and Perea, which he ruled from 4 BC to AD 39 (Luke 3:1). For this reason, when Pilate heard that Jesus came from Galilee, he sent him to Antipas for questioning (Luke 23:6–12).

He is infamous for his role in the death of John the Baptist, which later haunted him (Matt. 14:1–12; Mark 6:14–29). Jesus referred to him as “that fox,” alluding to his predatory destructiveness for having killed John the Baptist, who criticized him for taking his half brother’s wife, Herodias, in marriage. He also sought to kill Jesus (Luke 13:31–32). Jesus warned the disciples of the yeast of Herod (Mark 8:15). Yeast was a metaphor sometimes used to describe how evil spreads and corrupts the whole person, perhaps a reference to Herod’s lust for Herodias and his murderous opposition to God’s word and Son. (See also Antipas.)

(3) Herod Archelaus, ethnarch of Judea, Samaria, and Idumea (4 BC–AD 6) and son of Herod the Great (Matt. 2:22). (See also Archelaus.)

(4) Herod Philip, son of Herod the Great and Cleopatra of Jerusalem; he was tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis in the years 4 BC–AD 34 (Luke 3:1). He rebuilt Paneas and named it “Caesarea Philippi” after the emperor and himself (Matt. 16:13; Mark 8:27). Apparently, he married his niece Salome III, the daughter of Herodias and his half brother Herod son of Mariamne II.

(5) Herod (Philip), son of Herod the Great and Mariamne II, he was married to Herodias, who left him for his half brother Antipas (Matt. 14:3; Mark 6:17; Luke 3:19). Though sharing a common name, this is a different son of Herod the Great than the Herod Philip of Luke 3:1.

(6) Herod Agrippa I, grandson of Herod the Great, also called “King Herod” in Scripture (Acts 12:1). At the height of his power (r. AD 37–44), he ruled an area coextensive with that of his grandfather. He persecuted the early church, killing James the brother of John. Encouraged by the Jews, he imprisoned Peter, intending to put him on trial, until an angel of God miraculously intervened to free him. He died prematurely in Caesarea when struck down for not giving glory to God (Acts 12:20–25).

(7) Herod Agrippa II (reigned in Chalcis AD 48–52, in Iturea AD 52–c. 93), the son of Herod Agrippa I. Prompted by the governor Festus, he gave audience to the apostle Paul to make his defense. He rejected Paul’s attempt to persuade him of the truth of the Christian faith (Acts 25:13–27; 26).

Herod the Great (73–4 BC) built a number of palaces throughout his kingdom, including those in Jerusalem, Caesarea, Jericho, the Herodium, and Masada, but two play an important role in the NT. The only explicit NT mention of “Herod’s palace” (Acts 23:35) refers to the palace (or praetorium) built by Herod in Caesarea Maritima, which was used during the period of Acts as the headquarters of Roman governors in Judea. When Paul was rescued from a group of his Jewish opponents plotting to kill him (Acts 23:12–22), the governor Felix held Paul in Herod’s Palace until his Jewish accusers arrived from Jerusalem to charge him face-to-face (Acts 23:35).

Another of Herod’s palaces was the magnificent residence built to provide protection for the Upper City of Jerusalem. This palace consisted of two main buildings, each with banquet halls, baths, and accommodation for hundreds of guests. It was surrounded by groves, canals, ponds, and fountains. This palace became the official residence of the Roman governors who came to Jerusalem during the major Jewish festivals, and it is likely that Jesus’ Roman trial before Pilate took place here in the palace’s courtyard, or praetorium (Mark 15:16; cf. John 18:28, 33; 19:9). This is more likely than the traditional location at the Antonia Fortress overlooking the temple, since Pilate is unlikely to have been staying in the somewhat spartan barracks of Antonia.

Since the term “Herodians” appears only three times in the NT (Matt. 22:16; Mark 3:6; 12:13), it is unclear whether it refers to a political party or more generally to supporters of the Herodian dynasty. Herod Antipas, son of Herod the Great, ruled as tetrarch of Galilee during the period of Jesus’ ministry, and this is likely where the Herodians were based. In all three NT appearances they are conspiring with the Pharisees against Jesus. This is unusual in one sense because the Herodians were favorably disposed toward the Roman authorities (who kept Herod in power), while the Pharisees generally opposed Roman rule. Nonetheless, both groups had reason to fear Jesus and his influence among the people, the Pharisees for religious reasons and the Herodians for political ones. Herod and his supporters would have been leery of any popular messianic movement that might provoke a peasant revolt among Herod’s disgruntled subjects. See also Jewish Parties.

The unscrupulous wife of Herod Antipas who instigated the beheading of John the Baptist (Matt. 14:1–12; Mark 6:14–29). Herodias deserted her first husband, Herod Philip, son of Herod the Great and Mariamne II, to marry his half brother Herod Antipas (Matt. 14:3; Mark 6:17; Luke 3:19). When John the Baptist publicly denounced the legality of the marriage (cf. Lev. 18:16; 20:21), Antipas imprisoned him and Herodias sought revenge. Opportunity came through her daughter, Salome, whose dancing so pleased Antipas that he foolishly swore an oath promising anything she wanted.

A Christian living in Rome to whom Paul sent greetings and calls “my relative” (Rom. 16:11; NIV: “fellow Jew”). This description could denote a blood relation, but since Paul uses the same Greek term (syngenēs) to describe at least five other individuals (Rom. 16:7, 21) and elsewhere in the letter to refer to fellow Jews (Rom. 9:3), it more likely indicates a kinsman of the same race. The name implies a connection with Herod’s household.

A tall wading bird (Heb. ’anapah) that eats fish and other small creatures, it is listed as unclean (Lev. 11:19; Deut. 14:18). Several species exist in Israel.

A Moabite city that Sihon the Amorite king captured and made his royal capital (Num. 21:26–30). When Israel requested permission to pass through his territory, Sihon refused and instead attacked the Israelites. However, under the leadership of Moses, Israel defeated Sihon and captured Heshbon (Num. 21:21–31; Deut. 2:24; Josh. 12:2; Judg. 11:19–26).

The city appears to have changed hands many times throughout biblical history. Initially, the city was distributed to the tribe of Reuben, which “rebuilt” the city (Num. 32:37). Subsequently, Heshbon was passed over to the tribe of Gad (Josh. 13:27), which then assigned it to the Levites (Josh. 21:39). Judges 11:26 notes that Israel occupied Heshbon and surrounding settlements for several centuries. However, Judg. 3:14–30; 11:13–28 assert that the kingdoms of Ammon and Moab controlled the region (though not mentioning Heshbon particularly) at different times. By the time of Isaiah (and later in the time of Jeremiah), Moab had recaptured Heshbon (e.g., Isa. 15:4; Jer. 48:2), possibly under King Mesha during the height of Moabite prosperity. Josephus notes that by the time of Alexander Jannaeus, Israel had again conquered Heshbon (Ant. 13.397). The region of Heshbon is noted for its vineyards, wells, grasslands, and pools (Num. 21:22; Isa. 16:8–9; Song 7:4).

Most have identified biblical Heshbon as Tell Hesban, located in the highland plateau of Transjordan. Excavations reveal that the site was occupied continuously from 1200 BC and was likely an agricultural village that was fortified. Material remains (bowls and jars) from this period found on both sides of the Jordan suggest that the same people group occupied both sites. This concurs with the biblical claims that Israel occupied both sides of the Jordan during this period. However, there is very little evidence of earlier (Bronze Age) remains that could help identify it as the capital city of the Amorites (Num. 21:26). There is not enough archaeological data to either support or disprove that a battle for the city took place between Sihon and Moses. Since the whole site has not been excavated, it may be that evidence of Amorite occupation could be found elsewhere on the site. Alternatively, the site may not have been correctly identified.

A town allocated to Judah at the time of Joshua (Josh. 15:27).

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

The second son of Canaan, and the patronymic ancestor of the Hittites (Gen. 10:15; 23:10; 1 Chron. 1:13 KJV, NASB [cf. RSV]; NIV: “Hittite[s]”). These Hittite descendants of Heth were the Neo-Hittites, who maintained some of the culture but not the ethnicity of the Indo-European Hittites.

A location mentioned in Ezekiel’s vision of the new city and the new temple. The “road to Hethlon” served as the northern border of the land that God instructed Ezekiel to divide as an inheritance among the tribes of Israel (47:15; 48:1). The vision occurred in the twenty-fifth year of the captivity of Judah, as Ezekiel was instructed to declare to Israel everything that God showed him (40:1, 4). The exact location is unknown, though it may have been associated with the entrance to Hamath, which is located at the northern border of Lebanon (48:1; cf. Num. 34:8).

To “hew” is to chop, cut, or carve something. In the KJV, the term is applied to wood used for building (Jer. 6:6), stone used for the Ten Commandments (Exod. 34:1, 4; Deut. 10:1, 3), rock from a quarry (2 Chron. 2:2), or graven images (Hab. 2:13). In the NIV, it is applied exclusively to rock and used in parallel with “cut” (Isa. 22:16; 51:1). The KJV also uses the term “hewers” to represent a group of skilled workers who cut wood for use in building projects (NIV: “woodcutters, woodsmen”). See also Woodworker.

A modern name for the first six books of the Bible (Genesis through Joshua), viewed by some scholars as a unit instead of the traditional grouping of the first five books (Pentateuch). This scholarly construct was promoted by Gerhard von Rad as a more natural canonical unit, since it is only in Joshua that God’s promise to the patriarchs of the possession of Canaan becomes a reality. There are, however, overwhelming reasons to retain the Pentateuch as the preferred collection. The death of Moses is a watershed (Deut. 34). The book of Joshua is also closely connected to Judges. The note of promise and expectation at the close of Deuteronomy better fits biblical theology generally.

Son of Elpaal, a descendant of Benjamin (1 Chron. 8:17).

(1) The fourteenth ruler of the kingdom of Judah (727–698 BC). He was the son of Ahaz, an impious king, but Hezekiah reversed his father’s religious policies and worked hard at promoting true worship of Yahweh. Though not perfect, he, along with Josiah, is remembered as one of the two best kings to rule Judah.

He was not sole ruler of Judah until 715 BC, and he was serving as coregent with Ahaz when the northern kingdom fell to the Assyrians in 722 BC (2 Kings 18:9–12). Perhaps the fate of the northern kingdom led Hezekiah to initiate religious reform in Judah.

Although Judah was not incorporated into the Assyrian Empire when the northern kingdom fell, it was always under that great kingdom’s shadow and threat, likely paying annual tribute. It appears that Hezekiah participated in an area-wide revolt against Assyria after the death of Sargon II in 705 BC. In response, the new Assyrian king, Sennacherib, threatened Jerusalem in 701 BC. The Assyrian army successfully took many Judean cities, and its envoys appeared at the walls of Jerusalem. The prophet Isaiah assured Hezekiah that the capital would not fall, and it did not (2 Kings 18:17–19:37; 2 Chron. 32:1–23; Isa. 36–37).

According to 2 Kings 20:20, Hezekiah constructed a tunnel that brought water inside the walls of the city. The tunnel still exists today and takes the water from the Gihon spring to the Pool of Siloam. It is a remarkable engineering achievement, and an inscription found on the wall inside the tunnel indicates that it was built during Hezekiah’s reign.

After the Assyrian siege, Hezekiah fell sick, and Isaiah announced that he would die (2 Kings 20:1–11; Isa. 38). Hezekiah turned to God in prayer, and God granted him fifteen additional years of life, giving the king the remarkable sign of the sundial whose shadow moved backward.

Even Hezekiah, though, had his bad moments. After showing a Babylonian leader, Marduk-Baladan, the temple treasures, thus revealing an inclination to trust foreign powers rather than God, Hezekiah heard from Isaiah that his descendants would suffer the consequences of his action (2 Kings 20:13–21; Isa. 39).

(2) A forefather of the prophet Zephaniah (Zeph. 1:1; KJV: “Hizkiah”). (3) The ancestor of a family listed among those that returned from the Babylonian exile (Ezra 2:16; Neh. 7:21). (4) One of the leaders of the returned exiles, he participated in the sealing of the covenant at the Ezra-Nehemiah renewal ceremony (Neh. 10:17; KJV: “Hizkijah”). He may be the same as 3.

The grandfather of Ben-Hadad I, king of Aram (early ninth century BC) (1 Kings 15:18).

(1) A priest contemporary with David who was assigned the seventeenth of twenty-four positions in the priestly order of service (1 Chron. 24:15). (2) One of the “leaders of the people” who sealed the covenant with God following Ezra’s public reading of the law (Neh. 10:20).

One of David’s mighty men (2 Sam. 23:35 [Qere and some manuscripts: “Hezrai”]; 1 Chron. 11:37). He was a native of Carmel, thus a Carmelite. The mighty men are often referred to as “the Thirty” (2 Sam. 23:23; 1 Chron. 11:25), although 2 Sam. 23:39 says that there were thirty-seven.

One of David’s mighty men (2 Sam. 23:35 [Qere and some manuscripts: “Hezrai”]; 1 Chron. 11:37). He was a native of Carmel, thus a Carmelite. The mighty men are often referred to as “the Thirty” (2 Sam. 23:23; 1 Chron. 11:25), although 2 Sam. 23:39 says that there were thirty-seven.

(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).

One of David’s thirty mighty men, an Ephraimite from the brooks of Gaash (2 Sam. 23:30). In 1 Chron. 11:32 he is called “Hurai.”

The third of four rivers mentioned stemming from the river originating from the garden of Eden (Gen. 2:14), flowing east from Eden to Assyria. Whereas the KJV transliterates the Hebrew khiddeqel, more-recent versions use the better-known name of this river, “Tigris.” The other three rivers are Pishon, Gihon, and Euphrates. Hiddekel/Tigris is also the site of Daniel’s vision in the third year of Cyrus (Dan. 10:4).

The man from Bethel who rebuilt Jericho (1 Kings 16:34). He sacrificed his two sons, Abiram and Segub (or lost them to natural causes), and buried them under the foundation and city gates of Jericho respectively in fulfillment of the prophetic word pronounced by Joshua (Josh. 6:26).

A city located in the ancient Roman province of Asia in what is today the southwestern region of Turkey. Hierapolis, along with Colossae and Laodicea, were within twelve miles of one another and together comprised the three major cities of the Lycus River Valley during the first century AD. The city is mentioned explicitly once in the NT (Col. 4:13), in conjunction with its two prominent neighboring cities. The Christian community in Hierapolis may have been founded by Epaphras, one of Paul’s missionary companions. The city was known for its hot springs of water, and there may be an allusion to them in the address to the nearby church at Laodicea in Rev. 3:15–16.

In Ps. 9:16 (MT 9:17) the Hebrew word higgayon appears to be a technical musical term and thus is transliterated as “Higgaion.” The same Hebrew word elsewhere is translated as “meditation” (Ps. 19:14 [19:15 MT]), “melody” (Ps. 92:3 [MT 92:4]), and “mutter” (Lam. 3:62). The word appears to be derived from the verb hagah, which means “to meditate, speak” (e.g., Ps. 1:2). It may refer to a reflection set to meditative music.

One of the gates of the temple in Jerusalem. The KJV calls it the High Gate. It apparently was also called the Upper Gate of Benjamin (Jer. 20:2). Its location is uncertain, but it apparently faced north (Ezek. 9:2). Second Chronicles 27:3 and 2 Kings 15:35 identify it with a gate of the temple that Jotham rebuilt, but 2 Chronicles 23:20 suggests it (or a similarly named gate) led into the king’s palace.

In Jer. 31:21 the KJV translates the Hebrew word tamrurim as “high heaps,” referring to what more-recent versions render as “guideposts.”

In the OT, “high places” were places of worship, probably so named because hilltops were the preferred sites for such shrines (though alternative explanations are offered). They do not imply the presence of a temple building, but rather might consist simply of outdoor altars and could be associated with other religious objects such as sacred stones and fertility symbols (1 Kings 14:23). In the only description we have of the appearance of high places, they are disparaged as being “gaudy” (Ezek. 16:16).

Before Israel entered the land of Canaan, such shrines were centers of pagan fertility religion, the worship of the Baals. The Israelites were instructed that, on entering the land, they were to destroy all such shrines (Num. 33:52; Deut. 33:29). This they failed to do, and although not every Israelite high place had Canaanite origins, it appears that many did. Perhaps because of their Canaanite background and the continued presence of some Canaanite worshipers in Israel’s midst, the high places, while notionally becoming places of Yahweh worship for Israel (2 Kings 17:32; 18:22; 2 Chron. 33:17), were places where this worship was debased by pagan associations and practices, even to the extent of child sacrifice (Jer. 7:31) and prostitution (if this is to be taken literally in Ezek. 16:16; 43:7). The worship of Yahweh at these shrines became indistinguishable from Baal worship (2 Kings 17:11; 23:5), and some were specifically erected to foreign gods (1 Kings 11:7; Jer. 32:35). While perhaps deliberately not called a “high place,” the altar that Elijah repaired on Mount Carmel became a focal point for calling for an end to such syncretism (1 Kings 18).

High places had priests to officiate at their rituals, though often not from the line of Aaron (1 Kings 12:31; 2 Kings 17:32; 23:5).

The books of Samuel do not seem to comment negatively on the worship of Yahweh at the high places. In 1 Sam. 9:12–25 is an account of the prophet Samuel’s sacrifice at a high place, and it is at a high place that Saul encountered a prophetic band and received the Spirit of the Lord following his anointing by Samuel (10:5–13).

Even before the construction of the temple in Jerusalem, Solomon received a negative comment for his sacrifice at the high places (1 Kings 3:3). In Solomon’s time, the high place at Gibeon, where the tabernacle was erected, was considered the most important of the high places (1 Kings 3:4; 2 Chron. 1:3). For the writer(s) of 1–2 Kings, continued worship at the high places was a constant source of frustration. It is clear that following the construction of the temple in Jerusalem, at least, they considered that all sacrificial worship should be centralized in Jerusalem.

Even some of the best kings disappointingly failed to remove the high places (1 Kings 15:14; 22:43; 2 Kings 12:3; 14:4; 15:4, 35). The only kings who managed the removal of the high places were Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:4) and Josiah (23:4–20). It has generally been considered that the instruction of Deuteronomy concerning “the place the Lord your God will choose from among all your tribes to put his Name” (Deut. 12:5) required the centralization of all worship, and that this agenda is driving the ideology of the writer(s) of 1–2 Kings (cf. the use of “Name” at 1 Kings 3:2). While the words of Deuteronomy are capable of being understood in a way that allowed for multiple places where God might set his name at any one time, the tabernacle with its ark symbolizing God’s covenant presence could be in only one place, and the corruption that characterized the local shrines meant that the ruthless abolition of all local shrines was the only way forward for a faithful king such as Josiah.

Micah 1:5 likens Jerusalem (probably with particular reference to the temple) to a high place because of its unfaithfulness and corruption.

The high priest was the leader of the Levitical clan that oversaw Israel’s sacrificial system, whether directly performing sacrifices or supervising others. As no fixed terminology was set, he could also be referred to as the anointed priest, head priest, chief priest, or simply the priest. He was considered the holiest person in Israel, his position corresponding to the most holy place in the tabernacle or temple, so that he was the only one allowed behind the veil to perform sacrifices on the Day of Atonement (see Lev. 16).

The Role of the High Priest

Israel’s first high priest was Moses’ brother, Aaron, who was chosen by God and instructed in his duty. Many of the directions that he received were binding on every high priest who followed him. In addition to taking part in offering various types of sacrifices, he was required to enter the tabernacle twice daily to burn incense and tend the lamps (Exod. 30:7–8). An added responsibility may have been to place twelve loaves of bread on the table in the tabernacle each Sabbath (Lev. 24:5–8; Ezek. 44:16). Once a year, on the Day of Atonement, the high priest entered the most holy place to sprinkle the blood of a sacrificial goat on the mercy seat of the ark of the covenant, to atone for the sins of his people.

The high priest needed to be particularly careful to maintain his holy status (Lev. 21:10–15). Like other priests, he was not allowed to touch a corpse, but he alone was forbidden to enter a house where there was a dead body. He was not permitted to become unclean after the death of his mother or father or to tear his clothes as a sign of mourning. To prevent his offspring from being defiled, he was instructed to marry only a virgin of his own people.

Like all Israelite priests, the high priest was anointed for his position. This signified that he was set aside by God and empowered for his task. The high priest was distinguished from his brothers by his special clothing (Exod. 28). In addition to the linen tunic, sash, and turban worn by all priests, the high priest normally wore a breastpiece, an ephod containing the Urim and Thummim, and a robe. The breastpiece was a pouch made of blue, purple, and scarlet yarn with thin strips of gold woven into it. Attached to the ephod by four braided gold chains, the breastpiece was set with twelve stones, each of which was engraved with the name of a tribe, so that the high priest represented all of Israel before God. The Urim and Thummim were placed in the pouch, to be used by the priest when seeking special direction from God.

The ephod, made of the same material as the breastpiece, was a sleeveless garment fastened by a belt made of the same material. Two onyx stones, each engraved with the names of six of the tribes of Israel, were set in gold filigree and attached to the shoulders of the ephod. The robe, made of blue cloth and reinforced at the neck, probably was worn under the ephod. Golden bells and pomegranates alternated around its hem, the bells ringing whenever the priest entered the holy place so that he would not die. To distinguish this turban from those worn by other priests, a golden plate or rosette was attached, engraved to proclaim that the high priest was “Holy to the Lord.”

Even though the high priest usually wore distinctive clothing, on the Day of Atonement, when he entered the most holy place, he wore only a tunic, sash, undergarments, and turban, all made of linen. Evidently, the special clothes were not appropriate when atoning for the nation’s sins.

The high priest held a hereditary office originally occupied by the eldest direct descendant of Aaron’s son Eleazar. By the time of Eli, the priesthood had evidently passed to the descendants of Ithamar. During the reign of David, both Zadok, a descendant of Eleazar, and Abiathar, a descendant of Ithamar through Eli, served as priests. After David’s death, Solomon deposed Abiathar for supporting Adonijah’s attempt to become king. From this time onward, the high priesthood remained in the hands of Zadok’s descendants, until the rise of Antiochus Epiphanes, who sold the high priesthood to the highest bidder, no matter what his genealogical connections.

The death of a high priest was of national significance, as it marked the beginning of the tenure of a new high priest, who received his father’s special clothing. It also gave anyone who had fled to one of the six cities of refuge for unintentionally killing someone the opportunity to return home (Num. 35:25–28). Later rabbis concluded that the high priest’s death in some way atoned for those who committed manslaughter.

The High Priest and Political Leaders

From the period of the first temple a close link was established between the high priest and the king. Both were anointed to serve respectively as Israel’s chief spiritual leader and political leader. Kings often exerted their authority over high priests. Thus, Solomon promoted Zadok and deposed Abiathar. Similarly, King Joash instructed Jehoiada to repair the temple. It was also possible for a high priest to oppose or endorse a ruler. Thus, Jehoiada both deposed Athaliah and crowned Joash as king (2 Kings 11). The chief priest Azariah drove Uzziah out of the temple when he attempted to burn incense on his own (2 Chron. 26:16–20). At the end of the kingdom period, when King Zedekiah was taken captive to Babylon, the high priest Seraiah, along with his chief associates, also were taken into exile, where they were executed (2 Kings 25:18–21).

After the exile, when Israel had no king, the high priests gained additional political significance. During the Hasmonean period, the offices of high priest and king were sometimes united in one person. Herod the Great, in Roman times, elevated and deposed high priests at will. After his death and his son’s removal from office, high priests were appointed by the Roman governors and functioned as the Jews’ main liaison with Roman officials.

The Priesthood and the Early Church

In the first century AD, the high priest was the chief social and religious leader among the Jews, presiding over the Sanhedrin, the Jewish council that tried cases concerning Jewish laws. The Greek word used in the NT for “high priest,” archiereus, often appears in the plural, “chief priests,” to include current or former high priests and members of the priestly aristocracy. Luke refers to Sceva, whose seven sons attempted to cast out demons in the way Paul did, as a high priest. Since no list of high priests contains Sceva’s name, he may have been simply a member of a priestly family or personally used the term to boost his religious standing (Acts 19:13–14). After the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, the office of high priest disappeared entirely.

The chief priests, in association with the Sanhedrin, scribes, and/or elders, often opposed Jesus’ ministry. The final official rejection of Jesus came when the high priest Caiaphas proclaimed that one man should die so that the nation might not perish. By this proclamation, he unwittingly “prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation” and for other children of God, thus uniting them (John 11:49–52). Caiaphas later personally interrogated Jesus about his status as the Messiah and proclaimed him guilty of blasphemy (Mark 14:60–64).

After the resurrection, high priests joined the wider priestly opposition to the apostles. Thus, the high priest was present when the decision was made to silence Peter and John for proclaiming that the crippled beggar had been healed by the power of Jesus (Acts 4:1–20). He also took part in their subsequent arrest and questioning (5:17–28). The high priest questioned Stephen over charges that he blasphemed and spoke against the temple and Mosaic law (6:11–7:1). Paul, before his experience of the risen Christ, received letters of authority from the high priest to arrest Christians (9:1–2). Paul later stood trial before the high priest Ananias, who also brought charges against him to Felix (24:1), and then was charged before Festus by a wider group of chief priests (25:1–3).

The Priesthood of Jesus in Hebrews

Although other NT books imply that Jesus had a priestly ministry, the book of Hebrews alone develops the idea that Jesus not only has the right to serve as priest but also is the great high priest who replaces the OT priesthood. It is therefore incumbent upon all to follow Christ, as there is no other way to be forgiven of sin and come into fellowship with the Father. The book shows this in a number of ways, chiefly in chapters 5–10. As a descendant of Judah, Jesus did not qualify to serve as a priest under the Aaronic order. Hebrews therefore demonstrates that his service as a priest in the order of Melchizedek far surpasses the Aaronic priesthood (5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:17). Since Melchizedek is greater than Abraham, as seen by the patriarch bringing tithes to the priest, and since Levi, as a descendant of Abraham, in effect paid tithes through his ancestor, Jesus—as a member of a greater priesthood—is greater than the Aaronic priests (7:4–10). For Jesus to serve as high priest, he had to be “like his brothers in every way” (2:17). This required that he share in their humanity by taking on flesh and blood, learning to trust God completely in life, and dying (2:14). It also meant that he would be tempted in every way humans are so that he could sympathize with them (2:18). However, since he never succumbed to temptation, he could rescue people from their sin.

Although no one chooses to become a priest, Aaron’s descendants inherited their role, whereas Jesus was designated as priest by God with an oath (Heb. 5:10; 7:21; cf. Ps. 110:4). That God did not swear that Aaron’s line would always be priests implies that a change was possible. Since Jesus received his priesthood by an oath, his priesthood is greater than the Aaronic priesthood, becomes the guarantee of the better covenant spoken of in Jer. 31, and will never be forfeited.

The OT priests presented repeated offerings, and so their work could not definitively deal with the problem of sin. The sacrifices of the Aaronic priests needed to be repeated regularly, whereas the sacrifice of Jesus did not have to be repeated. Similarly, Aaronic priests needed to offer sacrifices for their own sins before they could aid others. Since Jesus never sinned, he had no such limitation. What the priests had to do for themselves daily (Heb. 7:27), and for the nation once a year, Christ did once for all (7:27; 9:26, 28; 10:10, 12, 14, 18).

The Levitical priesthood could continue only as new priests replaced those who retired or died, but Jesus’ priesthood is eternal because of his eternal life. Melchizedek is used to illustrate how this can be. But while Melchizedek remains a priest forever simply because the Bible does not record his genealogy or his death, Jesus has a permanent priesthood because he lives forever and because of the oath quoted from Ps. 110:4: “The Lord has sworn: . . . ‘You are a priest forever’ ” (Heb. 5:6; cf. 6:20; 7:3, 17; 21).

Not only is Jesus a greater priest, but also he presented a greater sacrifice at a greater, heavenly sanctuary. The Aaronic priests served only at a copy of this true heavenly tabernacle, which was erected by God himself (Heb. 8:2). Jesus presented not the blood of animals, which needed to be offered over and over, but rather the perfect sacrifice of himself, ensuring that no other sacrifice is needed. After becoming a sacrifice, he returned to the heavenly sanctuary, where he appears forever at the right hand of God as king and mediator. Due to Christ’s work, the most holy place is no longer barred to all but the high priest once a year. Rather, the curtain has been opened so that all his people can boldly draw near to the Father. Similarly, Christ’s priestly work ensures that those who follow him can be effectively forgiven, purified, sanctified, and perfected.

The designation “Highest” or “Most High” is commonly used for God. It represents God’s exalted status above all others. It occurs primarily in OT poetic or prophetic passages (e.g., Num. 24:16; Deut. 32:8; Pss. 7:17; 9:2; 18:13), although it occurs in the NT as well (e.g., Mark 5:7; Luke 1:35; Acts 7:48; Heb. 7:1). Melchizedek king of Salem and “priest of God Most High” praises God using the title “God Most High,” which Abram then uses to specifically identify God Most High as “the Lord” (Gen. 14:19–20, 22).

The expression “highest heaven” (Heb. sheme hashamayim, lit., “heavens of heavens” [cf. KJV]) is used in the OT to point to the greatness of God. Praying to God, Solomon commented, “The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you” (1 Kings 8:27; 2 Chron. 6:18). Even these highest heavens are simply a part of God’s creation (Neh. 9:6), belong to him (Deut. 10:14), and praise him (Ps. 148:4).

A major public road upgraded through some kind of paving material and with drainage ditches on the sides. Highways provided international access for armies, merchants, caravans, and animals on the major trade routes of an empire (Num. 20:17; 21:22). The paving material often was made of pebbles packed down, but occasionally it was made of cut stone. The term “highway” often was used metaphorically to suggest a wide, easy path of life (Prov. 7:27; 15:19; Isa. 19:23; 40:3).

A village in the hill country of Judah designated, along with its pasturelands, as a city of refuge and allotted to descendants of Aaron (1 Chron. 6:58). In Josh. 15:51; 21:15 it is referred to by the name “Holon.” The prophet Jeremiah also includes a town named “Holon” as part of his oracle against Moab (Jer. 48:21).

(1) The father of Eliakim the official of Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:18–37; Isa. 22:20; 36:3). (2) The son of Shallum (1 Chron. 6:13; Ezra 7:1–2), he was the high priest during Josiah’s reign who found the law book (2 Kings 22:4–23:24; 2 Chron. 34:9–22). (3) A Levite, the son of Amzi (1 Chron. 6:45–46). (4) A gatekeeper, a son of Hosah (1 Chron. 26:11). (5) One of twelve men standing with Ezra as he read the law (Neh. 8:4). (6) A leader of the priests who returned from exile with Zerubbabel (Neh. 12:7). (7) A priest of Anathoth and the father of Jeremiah the prophet (Jer. 1:1). (8) The father of Gemariah, who delivered Jeremiah’s letter to the Babylonian exiles (Jer. 29:1–3).

The part of the hill country in north-central Israel allotted to the large, powerful tribe of Ephraim (Josh. 16). In Jeremiah, it is referred to as the “hills of Ephraim” (4:15; 31:6; 50:19); the KJV uses the term “Mount Ephraim.” This part of the hill country included cities such as Shechem (Josh. 20:7), Shiloh, and Joshua’s home of Timnath Serah (Josh. 24:30). The region was largely comprised of high, rugged hills that made for difficult travel. Since the area had only been sparsely settled before the Israelite conquest, the Ephraimites had to clear the natural forestation (Josh. 17:15–18) in order to take advantage of the naturally fertile soil.

A mountain or hill to the east of Jerusalem that had a high place on it that was destroyed by Josiah (2 Kings 23:13 [KJV: “Mount of Corruption”; NRSV, NASB: “Mount of Destruction”]). According to 1 Kings 11:7–8, these high places were erected by Solomon to the gods Chemosh and Molek. In rabbinic tradition this mountain is more commonly identified as the Mount of Olives.

The site identified by the prophet Samuel as the location of Saul’s encounter with a group of prophets and his subsequent filling by the Spirit of the Lord (1 Sam. 10:5–6). Other versions render the Hebrew phrase gibe’at ha’elohim as “hill of God” (KJV, NASB) or “Gibeath-elohim” (NRSV). See also Gibeah.

The place where Joshua performed circumcision on a group of Israelites, hence the Hebrew name, meaning “hill of the foreskins” (Josh. 5:3 KJV, NET). After crossing the Jordan River into Canaan near Jericho, God commanded Joshua, before continuing the conquest, to make knives of flint (found in the region) and circumcise the Israelite males who had been born during the wilderness journey (Josh. 5:4–7).

The traditional founder of rabbinic Judaism and an early contemporary of Jesus. He was born in Babylon, but he founded a school in Jerusalem. Rabbinic literature claims that Hillel served as president of the synagogue. His school has come to represent the liberal wing of rabbinic Judaism (in contrast to the more conservative school of Shammai). His most famous saying, “What is hateful to you, do not to your neighbor: that is the whole Torah, while the rest is commentary” (b. Shabb. 31a), has parallels with Jesus’ summation of the law (Matt. 7:12).

The handle of a sword or other weapon. According to Judg. 3:22 NRSV (NIV: “handle”), when Ehud killed Eglon, he plunged the sword into Eglon’s body even past the hilt.

A pot for measuring liquids whose capacity was equal to one-sixth of a bath. The measure itself was also called a “hin” (e.g., Exod. 29:40; 30:24). Estimates of its modern equivalency vary from about four to eight quarts. One-sixth of a hin was a day’s supply of drinking water.

A female deer. This term is usually used poetically, primarily in the KJV and RSV (NIV: “doe” or “deer”). The hind (or doe) can indicate speed and stability (Gen. 49:21; 2 Sam. 22:34; Ps. 18:33; Hab. 3:19), love and gentleness (Prov. 5:19), or the mysterious workings of God (Job 39:1). See also Deer; Doe.

A pivot attached to a door, allowing it to swing and thus provide ingress and egress. The only biblical mention of Israelite doors with hinges is in connection with Solomon’s temple (1 Kings 7:50; NIV: “sockets”; cf. Ezek. 41:24). These hinges were made of gold and were used throughout the temple. Proverbs compares a lazy person in bed to the turning of a door on a hinge (26:14).

The most famous reference to a hip in Scripture is in Gen. 32:25, 31–32, where Jacob wrestles with the angel of the Lord until the angel touches his hip (yarekh, “hip,” “thigh,” “side”) and knocks it out of joint. The narrator points out that the Israelites “do not eat the tendon attached to the socket of the hip, because the socket of Jacob’s hip was touched near the tendon” (Gen. 32:32). Judges 15:8 records that Samson struck the Philistines’ “hip and thigh” (KJV, NRSV), resulting in a great massacre. The Hebrew word translated “hip” (shoq) can mean “shoulder,” “leg,” or “hip.” The phrase connotes both the complete destruction of the enemy and the ruthlessness with which Samson slaughtered them.

The hippopotamus has been suggested as the probable meaning for the Hebrew word behemot in Job 40:15. Elsewhere, the same word is the plural form of the word behemah, meaning “animals, cattle” (e.g., Job 12:7; 35:11). In 40:15 the term seems to refer to a particular animal. The precise meaning in that verse is uncertain beyond what can be discerned from context: it was large and apparently herbivorous. Although many modern translations leave the Hebrew untranslated (NIV, NRSV: “Behemoth”), their marginal notes often suggest that the word may refer to the hippopotamus, the buffalo, or the elephant.

The Adullamite friend of Judah whom the latter was visiting when he met his Canaanite wife (Gen. 38:1–2, 12, 20–23).

(1) The king of Tyre, contemporary with David and Solomon (tenth century BC). The name is an abbreviated form of “Ahiram.” The Bible states that Hiram was on friendly terms with David (1 Kings 5:1), probably indicating a treaty relationship between their two kingdoms. Hiram provided both materials and laborers to aid in the building of David’s Jerusalem palace (2 Sam. 5:11). Similarly, Hiram aided Solomon in the construction of the Jerusalem temple, providing “cedar and juniper logs” (1 Kings 5:8) and craftsmen. In return, Solomon paid Hiram wheat and oil on a yearly basis (5:11). Israelite buildings from this period show signs of Phoenician influence in their style and design. Most scholars believe that Solomon’s temple was designed by Phoenician craftsmen, guided by Israelite models and concerns.

After the temple was completed, Solomon gave Hiram twenty Galilean villages in exchange for 120 talents of gold (1 Kings 9:10–14). However, Hiram was displeased by the transaction. Some speculate that Solomon was forced by debt to give these cities to Hiram in order to raise capital, though 2 Chron. 8:2 claims that Hiram gave these cities to Solomon, perhaps understanding Hiram’s displeasure as implying their return.

Hiram and Solomon also pursued joint commercial maritime ventures. Hiram supplied veteran sailors for Solomon’s newly constructed fleet (1 Kings 9:28), and their two fleets sailed together (1 Kings 10:22; 2 Chron. 8:18). These seafaring expeditions dealt in luxury items such as precious metals, ivory, and exotic animals (1 Kings 10:22).

Josephus claims that Hiram and Solomon exchanged riddles and wagered bets over their decipherment, though the reliability of this information is doubtful in light of the late date of Josephus’s writing and the apologetic nature of his work. Early patristic sources claim that Solomon married one of Hiram’s daughters, though they may have simply extrapolated this from the reference in 1 Kings 11:1 to Solomon having wives from Sidon.

(2) A Phoenician craftsman, son of an Israelite woman (1 Kings 7:13 NRSV [NIV: “Huram”]), sent by King Hiram of Tyre to do bronze work in Solomon’s construction of the temple. See also Huram.

A laborer who contracted himself out for temporary jobs (“hireling” is used in the KJV, whereas more-recent versions use “hired man/worker, laborer”). It could be as short-term as one day. In the OT, there are warnings against oppressing hirelings, since they were among the socially disadvantaged (Deut. 24:14–15; Mal. 3:5). Jesus told a parable about workers hired throughout the day, all of whom received the full day’s wage, to teach God’s grace-oriented approach to rewarding his servants (Matt. 20:1–16). Elsewhere, the hireling became a metaphor for uncaring “shepherds” motivated by self-interest (John 10:11–15).

The Hebrew verb sharaq, sometimes translated as “to hiss,” can also be translated as “to whistle” and has two distinct uses in Scripture. It can refer to summoning, as in when a shepherd summons sheep (Judg. 5:16), God summons his people (Isa. 5:26; Zech. 10:8), or God summons an enemy as a means of judgment against his people (Isa. 7:18). The word also and more commonly refers to an expression of astonishment or derision, most often upon God’s judgment (Jer. 49:17; 50:13; Lam. 2:15; Ezek. 27:36; Mic. 6:16; Zeph. 2:15). In 1 Kings 9:8 God declares that the temple will be destroyed if his people disobey, and this word is used to anticipate the shock that people will feel. Jeremiah similarly predicted the shock of people who will witness the destruction of Jerusalem (Jer. 19:8).

The books of Genesis through Esther in the OT and Matthew through Acts in the NT often are categorized as history. However, in the ancient world the literary genre of history in the modern sense did not exist. Moreover, the English word “history” is ambiguous and can refer to either the events of the past or verbal accounts of these events. For the sake of clarity, this article refers to verbal accounts of the past as historiography and to the events themselves as history. Historiography is a genre wherein a nation or group attempts to render an account of its collective past. Biblical historiography was a creative attempt to depict and interpret events of the past, constrained by its sources (and inspired by the Holy Spirit), emphasizing Israel’s and the church’s relationship with God. The historian engaged in research, gathering information from oral or written sources, then recorded his findings in a unified narrative. This process set apart ancient historians from storytellers; however, ancient historiography was in fact closer to storytelling than modern history writing.

Methods of Ancient Historiography

Biblical writers used techniques similar to those of ancient Greek historians. Greek historiography was often organized thematically, using genealogies, speeches, or narrative formulas as structuring devices, instead of strictly following chronological order. Speeches were largely the creative work of the historian rather than being drawn from transcripts in sources. Also, both the overall content and particular details of the narrative were subject to the historian’s interpretation of the events. This same historical method can be illustrated by the following biblical examples.

Second Kings 20:12–19 describes Hezekiah showing off the riches of Jerusalem to his Babylonian visitors. However, the preceding narrative describes the loss of the riches of Jerusalem to an invading Assyrian king (18:15–16). Also, in 2 Kings 20:6 Isaiah predicts that Jerusalem will be delivered from “the hand of the king of Assyria,” but this deliverance has already been recorded in 2 Kings 19. This suggests, and extrabiblical evidence confirms, that the history of 2 Kings 20 actually took place before the history of 2 Kings 18–19.

In the books of Joshua through Kings, speeches are used as structuring devices, with main characters emphasizing the central theological points of the author at key points in his story (e.g., Josh. 1:11–15 [Joshua]; 1 Sam. 12 [Samuel]; 1 Kings 8:14–61 [Solomon]). All these speeches use distinctive vocabulary, suggesting that the same author composed them. Since the writer was not present at the occasion of these speeches (as they occurred long before his birth), he composed the speech (inventing much of the wording) according to what he thought appropriate to the given situation. The creative contributions of each historian can be clearly seen when a speech is recorded in two or more biblical books (compare the Beatitudes in Matt. 5:1–12 and Luke 6:20–26, or the prayer of Solomon in 1 Kings 8:22–53 and 2 Chron. 6:12–39). This is not to say that the speeches are historically misleading, but they were necessarily composed to present a narrative of the past. All historiography, ancient and modern, involves creative writing, selectivity, and interpretation of sources.

In comparison to its OT counterpart, NT historiography was written quite close to the events that it records, but it still shows great variation in descriptive details. For example, the resurrection narrative in Matt. 28:2 mentions one angel, Mark 16:5 refers to a young man, Luke 24:4 speaks of two men, and John 20:12 mentions two angels. Rather than indicating the fictional nature of the event, the differences are due to the interpretation that guided their writing (i.e., the person near Christ’s tomb, appearing to be human to some, was interpreted as an angel by others). When dealing with OT narratives, which often chronicle events from the distant past, we must remember that its historiography is interpretative in nature and does not attempt to merely recount what happened as objectively as possible. For example, 2 Kings 15:37 records an attack against Judah by foreign kings; however, the author does not describe any reasons for the attack, simply saying, “In those days the Lord began to send Rezin king of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah against Judah.” While no doubt there were indeed political reasons for the attack, the author does not comment on these reasons but instead gives a theological interpretation to explain it. In fact, theological reasons for past events and their relevance for the present and the future characterize biblical historiography. The ultimate explanation for historical events is God and his providential mastery of history.

The Function and Reliability of Biblical Historiography

Biblical historiography emphasizes continuity with the past by viewing the present as continuing the past’s story and focusing on cause-and-effect relationships in the past to explain the present and bring out a theological message for its readers. For example, 2 Kings 17 describes the Assyrians destroying northern Israel and deporting its population. This is as much as a modern historian would derive from the event. However, in the Bible this event is significant because “all this took place because the Israelites had sinned against the Lord their God. . . . They worshiped other gods” (2 Kings 17:7). This interpretation is elaborated in the chapter, dominating vv. 7–23, while the narration of the event itself is succinctly described in vv. 3–6. The theological interpretation of the event was more important than the event itself.

This does not mean that biblical historiography is fictitious, as it is clearly based on actual events that took place in the past. Biblical historiography has been largely corroborated by extrabiblical material and fits well into an overall ancient Near Eastern historical context, though it does not agree perfectly with everything we know about ancient history. Since recognizing the genre (e.g., parable, poem) of any biblical passage is imperative for correct interpretation, knowledge of the differences between ancient and modern historiography is vital for understanding the historical books of the Bible. Scripture affirms that God spoke in a variety of ways (Heb. 1:1); one way was through the genre of historiography.

The books of Genesis through Esther in the OT and Matthew through Acts in the NT often are categorized as history. However, in the ancient world the literary genre of history in the modern sense did not exist. Moreover, the English word “history” is ambiguous and can refer to either the events of the past or verbal accounts of these events. For the sake of clarity, this article refers to verbal accounts of the past as historiography and to the events themselves as history. Historiography is a genre wherein a nation or group attempts to render an account of its collective past. Biblical historiography was a creative attempt to depict and interpret events of the past, constrained by its sources (and inspired by the Holy Spirit), emphasizing Israel’s and the church’s relationship with God. The historian engaged in research, gathering information from oral or written sources, then recorded his findings in a unified narrative. This process set apart ancient historians from storytellers; however, ancient historiography was in fact closer to storytelling than modern history writing.

Methods of Ancient Historiography

Biblical writers used techniques similar to those of ancient Greek historians. Greek historiography was often organized thematically, using genealogies, speeches, or narrative formulas as structuring devices, instead of strictly following chronological order. Speeches were largely the creative work of the historian rather than being drawn from transcripts in sources. Also, both the overall content and particular details of the narrative were subject to the historian’s interpretation of the events. This same historical method can be illustrated by the following biblical examples.

Second Kings 20:12–19 describes Hezekiah showing off the riches of Jerusalem to his Babylonian visitors. However, the preceding narrative describes the loss of the riches of Jerusalem to an invading Assyrian king (18:15–16). Also, in 2 Kings 20:6 Isaiah predicts that Jerusalem will be delivered from “the hand of the king of Assyria,” but this deliverance has already been recorded in 2 Kings 19. This suggests, and extrabiblical evidence confirms, that the history of 2 Kings 20 actually took place before the history of 2 Kings 18–19.

In the books of Joshua through Kings, speeches are used as structuring devices, with main characters emphasizing the central theological points of the author at key points in his story (e.g., Josh. 1:11–15 [Joshua]; 1 Sam. 12 [Samuel]; 1 Kings 8:14–61 [Solomon]). All these speeches use distinctive vocabulary, suggesting that the same author composed them. Since the writer was not present at the occasion of these speeches (as they occurred long before his birth), he composed the speech (inventing much of the wording) according to what he thought appropriate to the given situation. The creative contributions of each historian can be clearly seen when a speech is recorded in two or more biblical books (compare the Beatitudes in Matt. 5:1–12 and Luke 6:20–26, or the prayer of Solomon in 1 Kings 8:22–53 and 2 Chron. 6:12–39). This is not to say that the speeches are historically misleading, but they were necessarily composed to present a narrative of the past. All historiography, ancient and modern, involves creative writing, selectivity, and interpretation of sources.

In comparison to its OT counterpart, NT historiography was written quite close to the events that it records, but it still shows great variation in descriptive details. For example, the resurrection narrative in Matt. 28:2 mentions one angel, Mark 16:5 refers to a young man, Luke 24:4 speaks of two men, and John 20:12 mentions two angels. Rather than indicating the fictional nature of the event, the differences are due to the interpretation that guided their writing (i.e., the person near Christ’s tomb, appearing to be human to some, was interpreted as an angel by others). When dealing with OT narratives, which often chronicle events from the distant past, we must remember that its historiography is interpretative in nature and does not attempt to merely recount what happened as objectively as possible. For example, 2 Kings 15:37 records an attack against Judah by foreign kings; however, the author does not describe any reasons for the attack, simply saying, “In those days the Lord began to send Rezin king of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah against Judah.” While no doubt there were indeed political reasons for the attack, the author does not comment on these reasons but instead gives a theological interpretation to explain it. In fact, theological reasons for past events and their relevance for the present and the future characterize biblical historiography. The ultimate explanation for historical events is God and his providential mastery of history.

The Function and Reliability of Biblical Historiography

Biblical historiography emphasizes continuity with the past by viewing the present as continuing the past’s story and focusing on cause-and-effect relationships in the past to explain the present and bring out a theological message for its readers. For example, 2 Kings 17 describes the Assyrians destroying northern Israel and deporting its population. This is as much as a modern historian would derive from the event. However, in the Bible this event is significant because “all this took place because the Israelites had sinned against the Lord their God. . . . They worshiped other gods” (2 Kings 17:7). This interpretation is elaborated in the chapter, dominating vv. 7–23, while the narration of the event itself is succinctly described in vv. 3–6. The theological interpretation of the event was more important than the event itself.

This does not mean that biblical historiography is fictitious, as it is clearly based on actual events that took place in the past. Biblical historiography has been largely corroborated by extrabiblical material and fits well into an overall ancient Near Eastern historical context, though it does not agree perfectly with everything we know about ancient history. Since recognizing the genre (e.g., parable, poem) of any biblical passage is imperative for correct interpretation, knowledge of the differences between ancient and modern historiography is vital for understanding the historical books of the Bible. Scripture affirms that God spoke in a variety of ways (Heb. 1:1); one way was through the genre of historiography.

The implementation of writing as a form of communication involves a complicated yet interesting feature of the emerging ancient Near East. The chronological development of pictures into letters and words depicts the creativity of ancient cultures, striving to preserve records in concrete form.

Early History

Hieroglyphs. Evidence from the end of the fourth millennium BC in Mesopotamia and Egypt depicts written communication as originally pictographic, or hieroglyphic, in nature. Each small, primitive picture represented objects, concepts, and actions. Egyptian hieroglyphics (3150 BC) employed several hundred frequently used phonetic signs, some of which were alphabetic in character. Egyptian writing is based on the acrophonic principle, in which each pictorial symbol designates the first sound in the object’s name. Each sign could also represent a single consonantal sound followed by a vowel. In addition, Egyptian pictographs can represent two or three consonant clusters, with or without various vowels, although customarily hieroglyphics omitted vocalization (vowel pronunciation). As a result, there are four different ways to interpret every Egyptian hieroglyph because each symbol serves multiple functions. Egyptian writing used a combination of nonalphabetic signs in addition to alphabetic symbols, lacking the economy and simplicity of an alphabet. Most of the twenty alphabetic symbols transcribed foreign proper names.

While some archaeological remains of Egyptian writing are engraved on stone or rock, the majority of writing entailed the use of a brush made of reed or rush. The common black ink was used for normal writing, while important passages or information were written in red ink. Egyptian writing on papyrus consisted mainly of drawings or painted lines depicting signs. Some stone engravings of Egyptian hieroglyphics are dated to the first century AD, although the cursive system on papyrus, primarily employed for sacred or hieratic (cursive) texts, extended through three millennia. Archaeological evidence reveals that contracts, accounting, and business documents were written with a demotic, or popular, diplomatic cursive system from at least the eighth century BC through the first century AD.

Syllabic writing and cuneiform. The complicated writing systems of the ancient Near East gave birth to simpler forms of written expression that could convey abstract concepts in addition to concrete ideas. Syllabic writing, consisting of an enormous number of signs, each representing a syllable, developed from the early Egyptian forms of pictographic, or hieroglyphic, writing. This writing system, comprised of almost six hundred signs, represented a variety of sound values, since all languages have far more possible syllables than they have individual words. Written in cuneiform characters impressed with a stylus on wet clay, the signs concurrently retain a pictographic function while also expressing whole words or syllables. The earliest known cuneiform, Sumerian, dates before the third millennium BC, evolving from the utilitarian needs of the city-states. Early tablets of stylus-embedded clay signs that were subsequently baked in the sun preserved many of the Sumerian writings for millennia. Sumerian does not resemble any other ancient or modern language in either grammar or vocabulary. The wedge-shaped linear signs, created with a square or round stylus, were originally written vertically, then rotated into a horizontal format, and read from left to right.

The Akkadians adopted the Sumerian sign system in the middle of the third millennium BC; however, they read those words as Akkadian equivalents. Since the number of separate sounds in most languages is small, the concomitant number of signs required to represent those sounds would be few. Akkadian sounds are not all adequately represented by Sumerian script because Sumerian, as an unrelated language, lacks some of the distinctive sounds essential to Akkadian. Consequently, a written language consisting of individual sounds could not develop from Akkadian cuneiform writing. Akkadian evolved in two areas of Mesopotamia into two East Semitic dialects, Babylonian and Assyrian, which continued in use through the first century AD.

Similar to Egyptian, Proto-Canaanite was written either horizontally or vertically, and from left to right on one line, then right to left on the next. The direction of writing determined the direction or stance of the signs. The predominant use of vertical columns of writing in the earliest period shifted gradually to a horizontal script during the Late Bronze Age. Many symbols shifted ninety degrees clockwise to adapt to the horizontal direction of script. These rotated forms have been traced from the analysis of documents extending from the fifteenth to the eleventh centuries BC, when character direction stabilized.

The need for more-efficient modes of communication grew in proportion to the expansion of administrative and international correspondence. A faster script developed over time, and although such trends influenced lapidary, or engraved-stone script, the latter remained intact alongside cursive script, usually written in ink. The spread of writing activity beyond the professional scribal schools led to widespread writing variations among the common people. Officials struggled to maintain certain writing standards, while those who were unrestricted found methods of faster writing. These innovations led to a widespread cultural adoption of one systematized form of writing.

Early Alphabet

Inscriptions in Egyptian hieroglyphics and Mesopotamian cuneiform have been uncovered in Syria-Palestine, although overwhelming evidence substantiates the development of an indigenous writing system in the region of Syria-Palestine: the alphabet. The reduction of several hundred signs to twenty or thirty made writing more accessible to the general community and systematized written communication.

The first steps toward alphabetic writing took place during the early second millennium BC, eventually rendering Egyptian and cuneiform writing extinct. The invention of a Proto-Canaanite alphabet rendered it one of the most influential innovations of the ancient world. All known alphabets originated from Proto-Canaanite, and the invention has never been repeated in isolated cultures using a syllabic script or logographics, visual symbols representing words or sounds. The invention of the alphabetical system, in which only one sign represented each phoneme or sound, allowed for sounds to be combined with vowels, contrary to the syllabic system, in which each sign represented both a consonant and a specific vowel. The limited notation of the Proto-Canaanite script harmonized well with the peculiarity of syllable formation in the West Semitic languages. Every syllable begins with a consonant, and the vowel system in Proto-Canaanite consists of only three vowel areas of phonemic significance, lending simplicity to the script.

Alphabetic inscriptions. The most important surviving exemplars of early alphabetic writing are the Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions discovered by Flinders Petrie in the ruins of an Egyptian turquoise mining community in the Sinai Peninsula at Serabît el-Khadem. The alphabetic inscriptions, some carved in stone by Canaanite mine workers, generally reflect religious votive texts. Some of the inscriptions were carved on piles of stones or on rock panels shaped to resemble stelae, slabs of stone erected as memorials. These inscriptions date to the second half of the sixteenth through the first half of the fifteenth centuries BC. Other alphabetic inscriptions found in various Canaanite ruins (Gezer, Shechem, Lachish) date to approximately the seventeenth to the sixteenth centuries BC. These discoveries suggest that the alphabetic script was more widespread than first conjectured and make it more difficult to determine the exact location where the alphabetic script first developed. The Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions are subsumed under the broader category of Proto-Canaanite; on this basis, historical linguistics established a date around the fifteenth century BC. Egyptian influence on the alphabetic script is apparent, since the Egyptians had a small number of phonetic signs that were alphabetic in nature, though they did not use them that way. The use of pictorial signs to represent initial sounds by the Egyptians may be observed in the earliest alphabetic writing from Canaan.

The Gezer Sherd (1800–1630 BC?) represents the oldest extant example of genuine alphabetic writing, with three archaic alphabetic signs: a palm, which signifies the letter k; a house, which signifies the letter b; and an ox goad, which represents the letter l. The Proto-Sinaitic inscription number 357, scratched on the wall of a mine in Serabît-el Khadem, depicts one of the longer examples of early alphabetic writing. The text is read vertically from top to bottom, then horizontally. The pictographs, such as the fish, represent the first letter of the word. Thus, a fish, called dag, represents the letter d; water, called mayim, denotes m; and so forth.

Ugaritic texts. Beginning in 1928, a large cache of tablets from the fourteenth century BC was discovered at Ras Shamra of Ugarit. The excavations yielded approximately one hundred tablets written in Canaanite cuneiform, which employs only a limited number of signs in contrast to the hundreds of signs generally depicted in cuneiform scripts. The script—consisting of a simple combination of lines and wedges adapted into lapidary, or engraved-stone, writing—is based on an alphabetic system. The tablets include a number of abecedaries (or alphabet lists), organized in a manner similar to early linear Phoenician. Increasing evidence suggests that the Canaanite cuneiform alphabet was not limited to Ugarit but was also employed by the Canaanites throughout Syria-Palestine. Ugarit ceased to exist after a severe earthquake and fire in 1200 BC.

The Ugaritic alphabet, an adaptation of the early linear alphabet of Proto-Canaanite, originally comprised twenty-seven consonantal signs. Ugaritic scribes did not adhere strictly to the consonantal principle of the linear alphabet. Instead of one sign representing, for example, the letter alef, the scribes employed three signs, each of which represented alef plus one of three short vowels: a, i, or u. A traditional order of the signs seemed fixed no later than the fourteenth century BC, according to texts excavated in 1949. Ugaritic generally is written from left to right. A word divider often separates the words from one another, although there are many exceptions. The tablets have their share of scribal omissions and additions, and the stance of the letters varies on some tablets.

The establishment of a long alphabet comprising thirty letters might have been construed as the earlier and original one, from which a shorter alphabet of twenty-seven letters developed through the loss of eight letters; however, this line of development would contradict the normal expansion of alphabetical systems as they accommodate a particular language. Evidence affirms the coexistence of the longer alphabet, expressly used for Ugaritic, and shorter abecedaries displaying characteristics of later Phoenician.

Discoveries have even uncovered two Ugaritic tablets that contain an alphabet composed of twenty-one signs, perhaps indicating an idiomatic version of the alphabet. In 1955 a special type of abecedary came to light that lists in parallel columns the Ugaritic signs and the cuneiform syllabic signs meant to transcribe the Ugaritic. Although the tablet is incomplete, the text contains the transcriptions of twenty signs.

The Ugaritic texts represent the oldest available complex of connected texts in any West Semitic language, furnishing materials for comparative Semitic linguistics, including pronunciation, word formation, and lexical data from the Late Bronze Age. These royal documents and cultic mythological texts display highly formulaic poetic structure, helping inform other ancient Near Eastern poetic texts. The range of archaic and more contemporary texts allows the scholar to trace the development of language over a long interval of time.

Early Phoenician and Related Scripts

Two principal linear alphabet forms were established by the end of the Late Bronze Age (c. 1300 BC): a northern tradition (Phoenician) and a southern tradition.

Phoenician. The consonantal inventory of Phoenician, limited to twenty-two letters, became the original source for subsequent alphabetic writing, including Hebrew, Aramaic, Moabite, and eventually the Greek alphabet. The earliest existing texts date to approximately the eleventh century BC, although earlier inscriptions dating to the late thirteenth and early twelfth centuries BC demonstrate the evolution toward linear Phoenician. Among significant twelfth-century inscriptions, the 1953 discovery of the ’El-Khadr arrowheads provided important data concerning the transitional period between older pictographic script and the early linear (Phoenician) alphabet. The arrowheads record the shift in letter stances as they evolved in the multidirectional writing styles of the Proto-Canaanite period until they stabilized in the eleventh century BC.

Among the peoples who adopted the Phoenician script were the Hebrews and the Arameans. A bilingual inscription written in Akkadian and Aramaic employs the Phoenician characters, although opinions regarding dating are diverse (eleventh through ninth centuries BC). Ancient Aramaic inscriptions from the ninth to the eighth centuries BC continued to render their languages using the Phoenician script. The earliest substantial Phoenician inscription known is an elaborately carved text on the upper rim and lid of a limestone sarcophagus belonging to Ahiram, king of Byblos. The inscription is one of five other Byblos inscriptions written in Phoenician script that present historical information concerning the reign of five kings during the tenth century BC and provide links in the chain of the diachronic development of early Phoenician characters.

Hebrew and Moabite. Ancient Hebrew inscriptions appropriate the Phoenician alphabetic script as well; however, it became apparent that the scripts and languages of the various Iron Age states of Syria and Canaan began developing regional or national features that distinguished them from one another. Aside from the Gezer Calendar, probably one of the most famous early ancient Hebrew inscriptions is found on the Moabite Stone, a black granite stela erected by Mesha, king of Moab, dating to the middle of the ninth century BC. The characters on the Moabite Stone are decidedly Moabite, but the language is Hebrew. The form of the Moabite script manifests discernible differences in development from the linear Phoenician; however, at this time Hebrew and Moabite would have been indistinguishable. Distinctive Hebrew forms do not emerge until the discovery of the inscribed stone bowl found at Kuntillet ‘Ajrud. The later Hebrew alphabet manifests commonalities and influences of the early linear script of Phoenician, adapting the twenty-two grapheme, or consonantal, alphabet and retaining certain letter names, such as mem and bet.

Greek. The Phoenician alphabet was transported to Greece during the late ninth or early eighth century BC. Although there are certain features that seem incompatible with the late-ninth- or eighth-century borrowing from Phoenician, the majority of the Greek script originates from a combination of Phoenician and perhaps some other Northwest Semitic alphabetic writing as well. Some of the archaic Greek letters seem to resemble Proto-Canaanite letters of 1100 BC.

Paleo-Hebrew and Aramaic. Increasing use of an alphabetic writing system throughout the ancient Near East became evident from the number of preserved clay seals, seal impressions, ostraca, and lists, all of which exemplify the Paleo-Hebrew script prevalent during this period. Among these finds, the ’Izbet Sartah Ostracon, uncovered in 1976, displays eighty-three letters arranged in five lines, beginning at the bottom with an abecedary, leading scholars to believe that this was a practice exercise. The ostracon contains multiple errors, confirming the inexperience of the scribe.

The Aramean kingdom, conquered by Assyria, included a number of Aramean scribes who served in the Assyrian administration, leading to the prominence of Aramaic as the official international language of trade during the Persian Empire. Aramaic also evolved into the official trade language in Judah; the square script was first appropriated by the Jewish people in commercial communication. During the postexilic period and extending through the Hellenistic period, the Jewish communities employed the square Aramaic script for copying sacred documents, including the Torah. Sections of the books of Ezra and Daniel (Ezra 4:6–6:18; 7:16–26; Dan. 2:4–7:28) combine Hebrew with Aramaic. The few artifacts from the Persian period onward suggest that the use of Paleo-Hebrew, apart from a few formal names and manuscript fragments, gradually dissipated and was eventually totally replaced by the Aramaic square script.

The Greek language and script also began to play a more prominent role in Judean culture during the Second Temple period and onward into the first century AD. The Samaritans preserved the practice of transcribing biblical texts in Paleo-Hebrew, and the tradition remains evident in the DSS. While some of the biblical scrolls reflect Paleo-Hebrew, there are a number of Greek translations of the biblical text as well, suggesting a plurality of text traditions. Most Jews used the square script for common communication, though Greek gained importance for many Jews. Eventually, the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek in order to meet the linguistic needs of the Jewish communities.

Conclusion

Alphabetic writing, first devised and implemented in ancient Syria-Palestine, provided the template for all other alphabetic systems known in the modern world. Although in many cases the evidence for the development of Northwest Semitic languages before the first millennium BC remains slim, archaeological discoveries enable scholars to trace the development of early alphabetic writing from its Egyptian hieroglyphic and Sumerian roots. Near the end of the first century BC, early linear Phoenician characters evolved, not as a national script, but as an international script appropriated by peoples throughout Syria and Canaan. This development is not surprising in light of Phoenicia’s extensive seagoing trade economy. Eventually, emerging city-states developed distinctive characteristics and national dialects that expanded into many other languages. Society owes much to the Egyptians and the Sumerians, with whom writing began, and to those who first envisioned an innovative and simplified means of written communication.

The name “Hittite” derives from the name of the Hittite homeland: Hatti. The Bible refers to “children (daughters) of Heth” and “Hittite” or “Hittites.”

Historical overview. Hittite precursors appeared in Anatolia (Turkey) during the third millennium. Of unknown origin, their language was Indo-European rather than Semitic like Hebrew. During the second millennium a Hittite kingdom emerged, with Hattusa (modern Bogazkale) as its capital. Hattusili I (c. 1650 BC) was the first Hittite king of historical rec-ord. He gained control of the trade routes and eliminated regional threats. He also established a Hittite law code, and under him Hittite literature flourished. His son, Mursili I, sacked Babylon, ending Hammurabi’s dynasty (1595 BC).

Hittite influence greatly increased under Tadhaliya II (c. 1400 BC) and especially under Suppiluliuma I (c. 1350 BC). At its height, the Hittite Empire spanned from central Anatolia to northern Syria (including Ugarit and Amurru), controlling various vassal states. The Hittites skirmished briefly with Egypt over territory in northern Syria (Muwatalli II engaged Ramesses II at Qadesh in 1275 BC), and then followed a period of negotiated peace and increased contact between the two kingdoms. In contrast, dealings with Assyria, typically strained, eventually led to defeat and loss of Hittite territory (late thirteenth century).

Shortly thereafter, the Hittite Empire, weakened by uprisings and defections among its territories, succumbed to the upheavals of the period. In its wake rose numerous minor states (e.g., Karkamis and Hamath) that saw themselves as successors to the Hittite Empire and perpetuated Hittite culture. These are referred to collectively as the Neo-Hittite states; Karkamis was the last to fall to the Neo-Assyrians (717 BC).

Hittites in the Bible. According to the Bible, the Hittites descended from Canaan (Gen. 10:15; 1 Chron. 1:13 [the NIV reads “Hittites” for the proper name “Heth”) and were destined to be subjugated—for example, by the Israelites (see Gen. 9:25–27). Genesis portrays the patriarchs in regular contact with Hittites, through which we learn of several Hittite individuals. Abraham purchased a cave and surrounding field from “Ephron the Hittite” (Gen. 23). Esau took Hittite wives (27:46); however, discrepancies exist concerning their names and ethnicities (cf. 26:34; 28:9; 36:2–3).

The OT consistently mentions the Hittites among those peoples whom the Israelites would dispossess upon entering the promised land (Gen. 15:18–21; Exod. 3:8). Yahweh vowed to drive them out before the Israelites (Exod. 23:28 [cf. v. 23]), while the Israelites were instructed to eradicate their presence from the land (Deut. 7:1–2; 20:17). The Israelites only partly succeeded, eventually settling among the other peoples (Judg. 3:5–6).

During this time, the Hittites are depicted as occupying the central hill country between the coastal plain to the west and the Dead Sea to the east (Num. 13:29; Josh. 9:1), though Josh. 1:4 refers to the entire region of Canaan and Transjordan as “the Hittite country.” This perhaps recalls Hittite influence upon the region, revealing a generic or political (versus ethnic) use of the term.

Further references pertain to the monarchic period. David had several close Hittite associates: Ahimelek, of whom nothing else is known (1 Sam. 26:6), and Uriah, Bathsheba’s husband and a member of David’s bodyguard (2 Sam. 11:3; 23:39). Under Solomon’s reign Hittites were conscripted for forced labor (1 Kings 9:20). Solomon also conducted trade between Egypt and Hittite states to the north (10:29), taking for himself Hittite wives (11:1). The final reference to extant Hittites comes from Joram’s reign, in the mid-ninth century BC (2 Kings 7:6).

During the exile and afterward, the Hittites became a byword (Ezek. 16:3, 45), exemplifying practices from which pious Jews sought to distance themselves (Ezra 9:1).

Conclusions. Identification of the biblical Hittites with those of Anatolia remains problematic. Clearly, Israel had contact with later Neo-Hittite states during its monarchic period (see 2 Sam. 8:9–10; 1 Kings 10:29; 11:1). Nevertheless, archaeology does not support a Hittite presence in the Judean hill country at the time of the conquest. Thus, the biblical Hittites may have been an unrelated, unidentified people inhabiting Canaan; alternately, “Hittites” (and the like) may have conveyed rhetorically the idea of “otherness, inferiority” (already anticipated by Gen. 9–10; cf. Ezek. 16:3, 45; Ezra 9:1).

A people descended from Ham, one of Noah’s sons, through the Canaanites (Gen. 10:17). They were indigenous inhabitants of the promised land, usually referred to along with others (e.g., Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites) who were to be dispossessed by Israel (e.g., Exod. 3:8; 23:23; Deut. 7:1). They lived primarily near the Lebanese mountains (Judg. 3:3) and Mount Hermon (Josh. 11:3). Despite God’s command to drive the Hivites out, they continued to inhabit these regions in the time of David (2 Sam. 24:7). Hivites also lived farther south near Shechem (Gen. 34:2) and Gibeon (Josh. 9:7; 11:19). A group of Hivites from Gibeon, having heard that Israel intended to destroy them, tricked Israel into entering into a covenant with them, securing their survival (Josh. 9). Hivites are also mentioned as being Israel’s slaves during Solomon’s reign (1 Kings 9:20–21).

Son of Elpaal, a descendant of Benjamin (1 Chron. 8:17).

A shortened form of the name of Hezekiah. (1) A forefather of the prophet Zephaniah (Zeph. 1:1 KJV [NIV: “Hezekiah”]). (2) A son of Neariah, in the genealogy of David, four generations after Zerubbabel in the postexilic period (1 Chron. 3:23). See also Hezekiah.

(1) The fourteenth ruler of the kingdom of Judah (727–698 BC). He was the son of Ahaz, an impious king, but Hezekiah reversed his father’s religious policies and worked hard at promoting true worship of Yahweh. Though not perfect, he, along with Josiah, is remembered as one of the two best kings to rule Judah.

He was not sole ruler of Judah until 715 BC, and he was serving as coregent with Ahaz when the northern kingdom fell to the Assyrians in 722 BC (2 Kings 18:9–12). Perhaps the fate of the northern kingdom led Hezekiah to initiate religious reform in Judah.

Although Judah was not incorporated into the Assyrian Empire when the northern kingdom fell, it was always under that great kingdom’s shadow and threat, likely paying annual tribute. It appears that Hezekiah participated in an area-wide revolt against Assyria after the death of Sargon II in 705 BC. In response, the new Assyrian king, Sennacherib, threatened Jerusalem in 701 BC. The Assyrian army successfully took many Judean cities, and its envoys appeared at the walls of Jerusalem. The prophet Isaiah assured Hezekiah that the capital would not fall, and it did not (2 Kings 18:17–19:37; 2 Chron. 32:1–23; Isa. 36–37).

According to 2 Kings 20:20, Hezekiah constructed a tunnel that brought water inside the walls of the city. The tunnel still exists today and takes the water from the Gihon spring to the Pool of Siloam. It is a remarkable engineering achievement, and an inscription found on the wall inside the tunnel indicates that it was built during Hezekiah’s reign.

After the Assyrian siege, Hezekiah fell sick, and Isaiah announced that he would die (2 Kings 20:1–11; Isa. 38). Hezekiah turned to God in prayer, and God granted him fifteen additional years of life, giving the king the remarkable sign of the sundial whose shadow moved backward.

Even Hezekiah, though, had his bad moments. After showing a Babylonian leader, Marduk-Baladan, the temple treasures, thus revealing an inclination to trust foreign powers rather than God, Hezekiah heard from Isaiah that his descendants would suffer the consequences of his action (2 Kings 20:13–21; Isa. 39).

(2) A forefather of the prophet Zephaniah (Zeph. 1:1; KJV: “Hizkiah”). (3) The ancestor of a family listed among those that returned from the Babylonian exile (Ezra 2:16; Neh. 7:21). (4) One of the leaders of the returned exiles, he participated in the sealing of the covenant at the Ezra-Nehemiah renewal ceremony (Neh. 10:17; KJV: “Hizkijah”). He may be the same as 3.

The KJV translates the Hebrew word kepor as “hoarfrost” and “hoary frost,” referring to its grayish white color (Exod. 16:14; Job 38:29; Ps. 147:16 [NIV: “frost”]).

In Num. 10:29 and Judg. 4:11 Hobab is referred to as the khoten of Moses. The most natural reading of the Hebrew term khoten here is “father-in-law.” However, elsewhere Moses’ father-in-law is known as Jethro (Exod. 3:1) and perhaps Reuel (2:18). Some versions (e.g., Judg. 4:11 NIV) render khoten as “brother-in-law” on the grounds that it has the general meaning “in-law” (in Num. 10:29, the NIV still translates the term as “father-in-law,” but here it is understood to apply to Reuel, father of Hobab). It is likely that Moses’ father-in-law had more than one name. See also Jethro.

A town referred to only once in Scripture. In Gen. 14, after Abram and Lot separated, Lot was taken captive, along with the kings of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboyim, and Bela (Zoar), by a coalition of kings led by Kedorlaomer. When Abraham learned of the defeat, he assembled 318 trained servants in his house and pursued Kedorlaomer. Abraham attacked them, and Hobah was the location to which Abraham pursued them in battle. The exact location of the town is unknown, but it was north of Damascus (14:15).

The leader of a priestly family whose descendants were among those who returned to Jerusalem led by Zerubbabel after the exile in Babylon (Neh. 7:63). However, upon a search of the ancestral registration, records of their priesthood could not be located, so they were excluded from priestly service and prohibited from eating from the holy things until their legitimacy as priests could be demonstrated (Ezra 2:61–63; Neh. 7:63–65). The name appears as “Habaiah” in Ezra 2:61. See also 1 Esd. 5:38.

One of the sons of Zophah from the tribe of Asher (1 Chron. 7:37).

(1) The oldest of seven sons of Elioenai and a descendant of David through Zerubbabel (1 Chron. 3:24; KJV: “Hodaiah”). Attempts to identify him with Abiud (Matt. 1:13), Joda (Luke 3:26), Hodiah (Neh. 9:5), or Obadiah (Neh. 10:5) are uncertain. (2) The head of one of the families within the half-tribe of Manasseh dwelling on the east side of the Jordan (1 Chron. 5:24) who were carried into exile by Tiglath-pileser III. (3) A Benjamite who was the son of Hassenuah and the father of Meshullam. His grandson Sallu was among those who dwelled in Jerusalem after the return from exile in Babylon (1 Chron. 9:7). In the parallel list in Neh. 11:7 his name is listed as “Joed.” (4) The forefather of one of two families of Levites who returned from exile in Babylon with Zerubbabel (Ezra 2:40). His descendants are also referred to as “sons of Judah” (Ezra 3:9 KJV [see NIV mg.]; cf. Neh. 7:43). In a parallel list of returnees in 1 Esd. 5:26, his name is listed as “Sudias.” Some translations spell his name as “Hodevah” in Neh. 7:43 (KJV, ESV, NRSV, NASB).

(1) The oldest of seven sons of Elioenai and a descendant of David through Zerubbabel (1 Chron. 3:24; KJV: “Hodaiah”). Attempts to identify him with Abiud (Matt. 1:13), Joda (Luke 3:26), Hodiah (Neh. 9:5), or Obadiah (Neh. 10:5) are uncertain. (2) The head of one of the families within the half-tribe of Manasseh dwelling on the east side of the Jordan (1 Chron. 5:24) who were carried into exile by Tiglath-pileser III. (3) A Benjamite who was the son of Hassenuah and the father of Meshullam. His grandson Sallu was among those who dwelled in Jerusalem after the return from exile in Babylon (1 Chron. 9:7). In the parallel list in Neh. 11:7 his name is listed as “Joed.” (4) The forefather of one of two families of Levites who returned from exile in Babylon with Zerubbabel (Ezra 2:40). His descendants are also referred to as “sons of Judah” (Ezra 3:9 KJV [see NIV mg.]; cf. Neh. 7:43). In a parallel list of returnees in 1 Esd. 5:26, his name is listed as “Sudias.” Some translations spell his name as “Hodevah” in Neh. 7:43 (KJV, ESV, NRSV, NASB).

A wife of Shaharaim of the tribe of Benjamin (1 Chron. 8:9). She was from the land of Moab (8:8), where she bore him seven sons.

The spelling in the KJV and other versions (ESV, NRSV, NASB) of the name of a Levite whose descendants returned with Zerubbabel from the exile (Neh. 7:43 [NIV: “Hodaviah”]). See also Hodaviah.

(1) One of thirteen Levites who helped the people to understand Ezra’s reading of the law, either by translating into Aramaic or by some other kind of exposition (Neh. 8:7). A man named Hodiah also participated in a ritual of public repentance and worship during Ezra’s reforms (Neh. 9:5). In addition, two of the “brothers” of the Levites whose names were on the covenant document that was sealed following Ezra’s reading of the law are also named “Hodiah” (Neh. 10:10, 13). It is difficult to determine how many distinct figures are present in these texts. (2) A non-Levite signatory of the covenant with God that was made following Ezra’s public reading of the law (Neh. 10:18). (3) A figure listed in a Judahite genealogical list in 1 Chron. 4:19. The listing concerns the descendants of his wife, who was the sister of a man named Naham.

(1) One of thirteen Levites who helped the people to understand Ezra’s reading of the law, either by translating into Aramaic or by some other kind of exposition (Neh. 8:7). A man named Hodiah also participated in a ritual of public repentance and worship during Ezra’s reforms (Neh. 9:5). In addition, two of the “brothers” of the Levites whose names were on the covenant document that was sealed following Ezra’s reading of the law are also named “Hodiah” (Neh. 10:10, 13). It is difficult to determine how many distinct figures are present in these texts. (2) A non-Levite signatory of the covenant with God that was made following Ezra’s public reading of the law (Neh. 10:18). (3) A figure listed in a Judahite genealogical list in 1 Chron. 4:19. The listing concerns the descendants of his wife, who was the sister of a man named Naham.

A farming instrument with a flat blade and long handle, used to weed, loosen the earth, and turn soil for planting (Isa. 7:25).

One of five daughters of Zelophehad (Num. 26:33). She and her sisters appealed to Moses to grant them inheritance rights when their father died without any male heirs (27:1–11). Their request was granted, but later it was also ruled that they must marry within their own tribe (36:1–12).

An Amorite king of Hebron (Josh. 10:3). Along with Piram king of Jarmuth, Japhia king of Lachish, and Debir king of Eglon, he was implored by Adoni-Zedek king of Jerusalem to join forces with him to attack the Gibeonites for having entered into a treaty with the Israelites. This coalition was defeated by the Israelites who went out to aid the Gibeonites in a battle of miracles. More of Israel’s enemies were killed by hailstones sent by God than by the Israelites’ swords, and it was on this battle that the sun stopped in the midst of heaven and did not set for almost a whole day (Josh. 10:6–15).

The hold of a ship contains its cargo and passengers beneath an upper deck. Jonah slept in a ship’s hold during a storm (Jon. 1:5 NASB, NLT; NIV: “below deck”). Tarshish ships had large holds to contain their heavy cargoes (cf. 1 Kings 22:48; Ezek. 27:25).

Also known as the holm oak or holly oak (Quercus ilex), a large evergreen oak native to the Mediterranean region. It takes its name from holm, an ancient name for holly. The term is used in some Bible versions in Isa. 44:14 (ASV, RSV, NRSV), though the identity of the tree named there is debated. Most other versions refer to it as the cypress (e.g., KJV, NIV, NASB, HCSB).

(1) One of eleven towns in the hill country allotted to the tribe of Judah under Joshua (Josh. 15:51). It was also one of thirteen towns given to the priests of Israel (Josh. 21:15; “Hilen” in 1 Chron. 6:58). It is commonly identified with Khirbet ‘Alin, approximately ten miles northwest of Hebron. (2) A town of uncertain location on the plateau of Moab (Jer. 48:21).

Holiness is an attribute of God and of all that is fit for association with him. God alone is intrinsically holy (Rev. 15:4). God the Father is holy (John 17:11), as is the Son (Acts 3:14), while “Holy” is the characteristic designation of God’s Spirit (Ps. 51:11; Matt. 1:18). God’s name is holy (Luke 1:49), as are his arm (Ps. 98:1), ways (Ps. 77:13), and words (Ps. 105:42).

With reference to God himself, holiness may indicate something like his uniqueness, and it is associated with attributes such as his glory (Isa. 6:3), righteousness (Isa. 5:16), and jealousy—that is, his proper concern for his reputation (Josh. 24:19).

God’s dwelling place is in heaven (Ps. 20:6), and “holy” functions in some contexts as a virtual equivalent for heavenly (11:4). God’s throne is holy (47:8), and the angels who surround it are “holy ones” (89:5; cf. Mark 8:38).

A corollary of God’s holiness is that he must be treated as holy (Lev. 22:32)—that is, honored (Lev. 10:3), worshiped (Ps. 96:9), and feared (Isa. 8:13).

While “holy” is sometimes said to mean “set apart,” this does not appear to be its core meaning, though it is an associated notion (Lev. 20:26; Heb. 7:26). Holiness, as applied to people and things, is a relational concept. They are (explicitly or implicitly) holy “to the Lord” (Exod. 28:36), never “from” something.

The symbolic representation of God’s heavenly palace, the tabernacle (Exod. 40:9), and later the temple (1 Chron. 29:3), and everything associated with them, are holy and the means whereby God’s people in the OT may symbolically be brought near to God. For God to share his presence with anything or anyone else, these too must be holy (Lev. 11:44–45; Heb. 12:14).

The OT system of worship involved the distinction between unclean and clean, and between common and holy, and the means of effecting a transition to a state of cleanness or holiness (Lev. 10:10). People, places, and items may be made holy by a process of consecration or sanctification, whether simply by God’s purifying presence (Exod. 3:5) or by ritual acts (Exod. 19:10; 29:36).

Holiness may be an attribute of places marked by God’s presence (Exod. 3:5; Ps. 43:3). Likewise, particular times, especially the Sabbath day (Exod. 20:8), are declared holy.

God’s faithful people are described as holy (Exod. 19:6; 1 Pet. 2:9). In the OT, this is true of the whole people of God at one level, and of particular individuals at another. Thus, kings (Ps. 16:10), prophets (2 Kings 4:9), and in particular priests (Lev. 21:7) are declared to be holy. While the OT witnesses to some tension between the collective holiness of Israel and the particular holiness of its designated leaders (Num. 16:3), the latter were intended to act as models and facilitators of Israel’s holiness.

The prophet Zechariah envisions a time when the distinctions between holy and common will be meaningless (Zech. 14:20–21). While vestiges of the symbolic language of holiness remain in the NT (e.g., the “holy city” in Matt. 27:53), after the death and resurrection of Christ the NT no longer operates with the symbolic holiness of the OT. Rather, this language is appropriated to explain what true holiness entails in the lives of God’s people (Rom. 12:1; Eph. 2:21). All Christians are holy (“saints” [Gk. hagioi] means “holy ones” [e.g., Rom. 1:7]), including in some sense the members of a believer’s family (1 Cor. 7:14). The holiness of God’s people is both definitive, by virtue of the saving work of Christ (Heb. 13:12), and progressive, by eliciting, and empowering through his Holy Spirit, holy and righteous living (Rom. 6:19; 1 Thess. 4:7–8). Both divine initiative and human activity with regard to holiness may be seen in texts such as Lev. 20:8; Heb. 10:14. The objective of Christian discipline is that we might share God’s holiness (Heb. 12:10).

Jerusalem is the “holy city” (Neh. 11:1, 18; Isa. 48:2; 52:1; Dan. 9:24; Matt. 4:5; 27:53), the place where God’s name dwells (Isa. 18:7). John’s apocalyptic vision of the new creation includes “the holy city,” the new Jerusalem (Rev. 21:2, 10).

The main structure of the tabernacle and later the temple consisted of two rooms, the holy place and the holy of holies, the latter otherwise known as the “Most Holy Place” (Exod. 26:33–35; 1 Kings 6:19–21). The ark of the covenant was placed in this room, which was entered by the high priest once a year on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16).

One of two major sections in Israel’s tabernacle, the holy place housed several sacred objects, including the lampstand, the table of consecrated bread, and the altar of incense (Exod. 25:23–39; 30:1–10; Heb. 9:2–3). A special curtain in the holy place separated this chamber from the most holy place, which contained the ark of the covenant, thereby protecting the latter from defilement (Exod. 26:33).

In Christian theology, the Third Person of the Trinity. The usage derives from the NT, in which the divine Spirit is treated as an independent person who is instrumental in salvation and is worthy of the praise accorded to both the Father and the Son (John 14:16–23; Rom. 8:26–27; 1 Pet. 1:2).

Old Testament

The scarcity of the phrase “Holy Spirit” in the OT (only in Ps. 51:11; Isa. 63:10–11) does not imply lack of interest or importance. While it should be recognized that in the OT the person of the Holy Spirit receives nothing like the systematic reflection found in the NT, when one includes correlative terms, such as “Spirit of God,” “my Spirit,” “wind,” or “breath,” it is apparent that OT writers attributed great significance to God’s Spirit. Thus, the Spirit was at work in the beginning of creation (Gen. 1:2). Adam and Eve are uniquely given life by the breath of God (Gen. 2:7). The Spirit enables the building of the tabernacle (Exod. 31:3), gives voice to the message of the prophets (Num. 11:29; cf. 2 Pet. 1:21), empowers Israel’s leaders (1 Sam. 16:13), and provides access to God’s presence (Ps. 51:11). Yet in all this, the work of the Spirit in the OT is sporadic, occasional, and localized. Thus, the prophets long for a new age when God’s people will more perfectly enjoy the Spirit’s presence (Isa. 32:15; 44:3; 61:1; Joel 2:28).

New Testament

The Spirit in the ministry of Christ. The NT views the OT prophetic hope for the Spirit as fulfilled in and through Jesus Christ (Luke 4:18–21). The unique relationship between God’s Holy Spirit and the person and work of Jesus explains the systemic reflection that the Holy Spirit receives in the NT. This is signaled at the very beginning of Jesus’ life, when the Holy Spirit “comes upon” Mary, overshadowing her with “the power of the Most High” (1:35). Similarly, at the start of Jesus’ public ministry, the Holy Spirit “descended on him” at baptism (3:22). This anointing by the Spirit initiates and empowers Jesus’ public ministry, from his preaching, to his miraculous works, to his perfect obedience (Luke 4:14–18; John 3:34; Acts 10:38). Even his sacrificial death is accomplished by the power of the Holy Spirit (Heb. 9:14).

Significantly, just as the Holy Spirit empowered the life and death of Jesus, so too is the Spirit responsible for his resurrection and characteristic of his glorious reign. Death is not a defeat for Jesus: he is “vindicated by the Spirit” (1 Tim. 3:16), “appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead” (Rom. 1:4; cf. 1 Pet. 3:18). Furthermore, at his resurrection, Jesus comes into a new phase of full and perfect possession of the eternal Spirit as the reward for his obedience. So complete is this union that Paul at one point claims that “the Lord is the Spirit” (2 Cor. 3:17).

The Spirit in the church and the believer. The church and its members are the immediate beneficiaries of Christ’s spiritual fullness. Since Jesus is now a “life-giving spirit” through his resurrection and ascension (1 Cor. 15:45), he is able to fulfill the promise of Spirit baptism (Luke 3:16). This baptism takes place in the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost, which marks the birth of the NT church. The apostles, illuminated by the Holy Spirit, provide true and powerful testimony about Jesus (John 16:4–15), testimony that serves as the church’s foundation and principal tradition (Eph. 2:20). The work of the Spirit continues within the church in the postapostolic age, uniting its members in Christ for God’s holy purpose (Eph. 2:22).

This same outpouring of the Holy Spirit is the salvation of individual believers. Believers receive the Spirit by faith (Gal. 3:14). The Spirit in turn unites them to Christ and all his benefits (Gal. 3:2; Eph. 1:3), including his life (Heb. 4:15–16), suffering (Phil. 1:29; 1 Pet. 4:14), death (Rom. 6:3), resurrection (Rom. 6:5), justification (Rom. 4:25), and glorious reign in heaven (Phil. 3:20). These benefits, though undoubtedly perfected and consummated only at Christ’s return (Phil. 1:6), are characteristic of believers’ present experience, enjoyed now because the Spirit dwells within them as the “firstfruits” of the harvest to come (Rom. 8:23; cf. Gal. 2:19–20). This indwelling of the Spirit results in new birth and new creation (2 Cor. 5:17), a newness identified with the life that Christ received in his resurrection (Rom. 8:11).

For this reason, believers are urged to further the work of the Spirit in their lives until the bodily resurrection of all God’s people. They are to cultivate the “fruit of the Spirit” (Gal. 5:22), and they are correspondingly warned not to “grieve the Holy Spirit” (Eph. 4:30). Furthermore, since new life is initiated by the Spirit (John 3:6–8), Christians are to remain in that Spirit, not turning aside in reliance on vain and useless principles (Gal. 3:1–5). Conversely, they are to be “filled with the Spirit” (Eph. 5:18), putting off the old person and putting on the new (4:22). This filling grounds every aspect of the believer’s life, from obedience, to worship, to the hope of resurrection. The Spirit, in uniting believers to all the riches of Christ and his resurrection, is therefore central in the work of salvation. See also Spirit.

Also known as kherem warfare or Yahweh war. The term “holy war,” though never used in the Bible, characterizes well the wars that Israel fought at God’s command, particularly those within the Promised Land. God is present with Israel in war, and thus the battlefield becomes holy ground. God gives Israel instructions concerning the waging of war in Deut. 7, 20. From these passages, plus the historical accounts of Israel’s wars, we can describe holy war as follows.

Before the Battle

God tells Israel when to go to war. Israel’s leaders cannot engage in battle without first hearing from God. God reveals himself to Joshua, for instance, before the battle of Jericho to give him instructions (Josh. 5:13–15). David inquires of God through the priest Abiathar, who presumably uses oracular devices to discover God’s will (1 Sam. 23:1–6). Joshua makes a serious error in not seeking God’s will in the matter of the Gibeonites (Josh. 9:14).

Once the Israelites learn that God wants them to go to battle, they must spiritually prepare themselves. Since God makes his presence known on the battlefield, the troops must be in a state of ritual purity comparable to those who visit the sanctuary. Before the conquest, for instance, it is necessary for the fighting men to undergo circumcision and to observe the Passover (Josh. 5:2–12). Prebattle sacrifices are also required (1 Sam. 13).

During the Battle

The Ark of the Covenant plays a central role in holy war, carried by priests and accompanying the army. The ark is a powerful symbol of God’s presence and indicates to the army that God fights for them. The march into battle takes the form of a religious procession. The priests carrying the ark go first, while singers praise God (2 Chron. 20:20–21). The long march in the wilderness has the character of such a march into battle, since Moses begins the day’s journey by shouting, “Rise up, Lord! May your enemies be scattered; may your foes flee before you” (Num. 10:35). Then the ark carried by priests leads the way.

Since God is present with the army, the number of troops and the quality of their weapons are unimportant. Indeed, on occasion when Israel has an ample supply of troops, God commands that the war leader reduce their number, as in the famous story of Gideon paring down his troops from thirty-two thousand to three hundred. The purpose of this reduction is to demonstrate to the people with certainty that they win the battle only because of God’s strength. The inexperienced David, armed with a slingshot, expresses this sentiment to the mercenary giant Goliath before he kills him: “You come against me with sword and spear and javelin, but I come against you in the name of the Lord Almighty, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied. . . . All those gathered here will know that it is not by sword or spear that the Lord saves; for the battle is the Lord’s, and he will give all of you into our hands” (1 Sam. 17:45, 47). Although the Israelites must engage the enemy, they know for certain that it is God who provides the victory.

After the Battle

Since God wins the battle for Israel, the proper response is praise. The OT contains many songs that celebrate victory in warfare (Exod. 15; Judg. 5; Pss. 24; 98; 149).

The treatment of the plunder and prisoners of war depends on whether the battle takes place in the promised land. If the battle takes place outside the land, then, while the men are killed, the women and children are spared. If the battle takes place in the land, then kherem goes into effect. The Hebrew word kherem is difficult to translate (possibilities include “complete destruction,” “things under the ban,” “things devoted to the Lord”), but it is clear that it means that all the plunder goes to God (the sanctuary treasury) and that all the people (men, women, and children), and sometimes all the animals, are killed. The purpose of this is to keep the inhabitants of the land from influencing Israel to worship other gods. Also, God uses Israel as an instrument of his judgment against these sinful nations.

Warfare against Israel

While most divinely ordained warfare was directed toward Israel’s enemies, God also used foreign nations to judge his sinful people. The initial defeat at Ai (Josh. 7), the capture of the ark by the Philistines at the time of Eli (1 Sam. 4), and the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by the Babylonians (Lam. 2) are examples.

New Testament Holy War

The prophets who ministered during the exilic and postexilic periods announced that God would appear again in the future. The people of Israel were living under the oppressive hand of Babylon and then Persia, but they were comforted by the idea that God would come and save them from their enemies (Dan. 7; Zech. 14; Mal. 4).

When the NT opens, John the Baptist proclaims that the time of judgment announced by these prophets has come (Matt. 3:7–12). After he baptizes Jesus, he is put in prison and hears reports of Jesus’ ministry that disturb him. He wonders why Jesus is not bringing violent judgment against the enemies of God (Matt. 11:1–15). But Jesus has heightened and intensified the warfare so that it is directed against the “powers and principalities,” and this battle is won with spiritual weapons (2 Cor. 10:3–6; Eph. 6:10–20). Indeed, the ultimate victory is achieved not by killing but by dying. Paul describes the crucifixion and ascension using warfare language in Eph. 4:7–10; Col. 2:13–15.

John, however, was not wrong. The book of Revelation is the fullest statement of Christ’s return, which will signal the final war. In this war, all evil, both spiritual and human, will be brought to an end (Rev. 19:11–21).

Sometimes called “Passion Week,” Holy Week is the week preceding Easter Sunday and commemorates events of Jesus’ last week of ministry. It begins with Palm Sunday, remembering Jesus’ entry to Jerusalem (John 12:13).

Maundy Thursday (from Lat. mandatum [“commandment”]) is so named because Jesus gave his disciples “a new commandment” (John 13:34): to love one another. Maundy Thursday services often include footwashing ceremonies (cf. John 13:4) and the Eucharist (cf. Matt. 26:26–29).

Good Friday is a remembrance of the day Jesus was crucified (John 19:18). Services on this day are somber. Often the music is voices only, without accompaniment. Crosses may be covered in black cloth, and the proceedings are characterized by a funereal tone.

Holy Saturday marks Jesus’ time in the tomb. The mourning lasts until dusk, at which time the Vigil, the first service of Easter, may be celebrated.

Easter Sunday is the day of the resurrection (John 20:1–9), the most joyous service of the Christian church. Bells are rung, and “Alleluia!” is shouted. In the early church, Easter Sunday was the day when baptisms were performed.

A gesture of honor or reverence before a king, high official, or God. Subjects bow, kneel, or fall prostrate before their king (1 Kings 1:16, 31; 2 Chron. 24:17) or before God at the king’s command (1 Chron. 29:20). Mordecai disobeys King Xerxes by refusing to kneel and honor his chief royal officer, Haman (Esther 3:2, 5). Job admits that a metaphorical “kiss of homage” to worldly wealth or heavenly objects would be a sin before God (Job 31:27). The Roman soldiers fall on their knees and pay mock homage to Jesus before they crucify him (Mark 15:19).

A son of Lotan and a grandson of Seir (Gen. 36:22). The NIV renders the name as “Homam,” based on the parallel account in 1 Chron. 1:39, whereas the KJV follows the Hebrew and opts for “Hemam.”

The term “homeless,” as used generally in Scripture, refers to the poor and destitute. Through the prophet Isaiah, God berates the nation of Israel for “practicing religion” without caring for the poor, including bringing “the homeless poor into your house” (Isa. 58:7 NRSV). Jesus conveys a picture of the final judgment, in which all human beings are judged based on their response to the poor and homeless: food for the hungry, water for the thirsty, clothes for the naked, relationship for the sick and imprisoned (Matt. 25:35–46). This is not an example of a works-based faith; rather, it is the manifestation of God’s love in the life of a true believer (1 John 3:17–18). Homelessness is often the result of complex situations ranging from the systemic to the personal. Regardless of the cause, Christians are compelled to aid the homeless by the commandment to love both God and your neighbor (Matt. 22:37–39).

Some argue that Jesus Christ himself was homeless, based upon Jesus’ saying, “Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head” (Matt. 8:20; Luke 9:58). Although “homeless” may have correctly characterized Jesus during his three years of public ministry in various cities about the land, the common aspects of poverty (severe material need, hopelessness) are not seen in the person of Jesus in the Gospel accounts. Paul, however, laments that he and the other apostles are homeless despite other believers’ blessed material state (1 Cor. 4:11). See also Fatherless; Poor, Orphan, Widow.

The term “homeless,” as used generally in Scripture, refers to the poor and destitute. Through the prophet Isaiah, God berates the nation of Israel for “practicing religion” without caring for the poor, including bringing “the homeless poor into your house” (Isa. 58:7 NRSV). Jesus conveys a picture of the final judgment, in which all human beings are judged based on their response to the poor and homeless: food for the hungry, water for the thirsty, clothes for the naked, relationship for the sick and imprisoned (Matt. 25:35–46). This is not an example of a works-based faith; rather, it is the manifestation of God’s love in the life of a true believer (1 John 3:17–18). Homelessness is often the result of complex situations ranging from the systemic to the personal. Regardless of the cause, Christians are compelled to aid the homeless by the commandment to love both God and your neighbor (Matt. 22:37–39).

Some argue that Jesus Christ himself was homeless, based upon Jesus’ saying, “Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head” (Matt. 8:20; Luke 9:58). Although “homeless” may have correctly characterized Jesus during his three years of public ministry in various cities about the land, the common aspects of poverty (severe material need, hopelessness) are not seen in the person of Jesus in the Gospel accounts. Paul, however, laments that he and the other apostles are homeless despite other believers’ blessed material state (1 Cor. 4:11). See also Fatherless; Poor, Orphan, Widow.

A unit of volume for liquids such as wine or dry materials such as barley (Hos. 3:2) or quail (Num. 11:32). Generally, a homer equaled sixty gallons of liquid or 7.5 bushels of dry material, but it varied over time and locale. A homer was equivalent to ten baths (liquid) or ten ephahs (dry) in Ezekiel’s time (Ezek. 45:11).

Homosexuality is a sexual relationship between two members of the same sex. It is a controversial issue today, especially as it relates to marriage and to serving in the ministry. Several key biblical texts stand at the center of interpreting the Bible’s stance and teachings on this subject.

The Biblical Texts

Genesis 19 (with Ezek. 16:49–50; Jude 7). The biblical narrative regarding the degradation and destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah indicates that their sin was grievous (Gen. 18:20; see also Gen. 13:13). When the two angelic visitors arrived, the men of the city, both young and old, asked to “know” (Heb. yada’) them. As an alternative, Lot offered his two virgin daughters, intended as sexual substitutes. While the Hebrew verb used here occurs frequently and characteristically simply means “to know,” ten times in Genesis it has strong overtones of sexual union. This narrative is sometimes dismissed as a case of gang rape, whereby power over foreigners was demonstrated in sexual terms. Likewise, some suggest that because no father in contemporary Western culture would ever offer his daughters to maintain the honor of guests, what this passage says about homosexuality also reflects cultural remnants of a bygone age. Thus, the incident would have nothing to do with homosexuality as demonstrated in consensual, committed same-sex relationships. In light of these alternative interpretations, it is necessary to investigate further the implications of this event and its subsequent interpretation in Scripture.

There are two explicit commentaries on the Genesis narrative later in the biblical canon. The first is provided by Ezekiel, from whom we learn that Sodom and the surrounding cities were “arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and they did detestable things before [God]” (Ezek. 16:49–50). The clause “they did detestable things” must be translated that way. The interpretation “it [i.e., the arrogance] was detestable” is unacceptable because the Hebrew verb is third-person feminine plural (“they did”), and the subject is Sodom and her sisters (the surrounding towns). Clearly, homosexual practice was not one singular sin there. It was one in the midst of a culture rife with things that were “detestable” in God’s eyes. “Detestable” is used over a hundred times in the Hebrew Bible of things that run absolutely counter to the nature of God. It also appears in Lev. 18; 20, addressed further below. The second direct response to the incident is Jude’s condemnation of the sexual license in Sodom and Gomorrah: the towns “gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion” (Jude 7).

In sum, Sodom and Gomorrah became the paradigm for comprehensively destructive evil (cf. Isa. 1:10; Jer. 23:14; Matt. 10:5–15; 11:20–24; Luke 10:1–15), representing societies entirely corrupt and hardened beyond repentance. This sobering characteristic is particularly evident in Jesus’ references to the cities. Furthermore, what we cannot ignore is that the Genesis narrative of that pervasive evil centers on the perversion of sexuality, starting with men wanting men, followed by Lot’s offering his daughters, and then Lot’s daughters engaging their father in sexual activity.

Judges 19. Tragically, this narrative thread is not isolated in Genesis. The same activity appears again in Judg. 19, where some of God’s people had adopted the ways of the debased Canaanite culture around them. In the narrative, a Levite stopped for the night in the town of Gibeah, a city of the tribe of Benjamin. Some men of the city demanded that his host give them access to him, and again a virgin daughter and the Levite’s concubine were offered in his place. Human sexuality and life itself were being abused in the most heinous ways; the narrative is a shocking testimony to the depths to which humankind can descend, as the Levite’s concubine was raped to death over a long night.

Leviticus 18:22; 20:13. The first of these passages forbids a man to “have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman,” indicating that it is “detestable,” or an “abomination” (KJV; Heb. to’ebah). It is not limited to the violent homosexual activity that characterized the previous narratives; rather, it is a general and blanket prohibition. Leviticus 20:13 pronounces the death penalty for that act.

Because these are in the so-called Holiness Code (Lev. 17–26), significant parts of which deal with ritual matters, some interpretations view these statements as merely addressing outdated purity issues, not sin. Furthermore, because the death penalty is indicated, they are dismissed as no longer relevant for the church. Nevertheless, the great majority of the other prohibitions and infractions noted in these chapters address troubling sexual activities (“uncovering the nakedness [’erwat] of . . .”), including incest, adultery, and bestiality, all of which are still clearly unacceptable. Furthermore, Lev. 19 contains significant ethical instructions, many of which reiterate the Ten Commandments. Thus, these texts must not be dismissed too hastily. Outside Leviticus, to’ebah is used of idolatrous worship, sexually immoral acts, and ethical infractions. Activities that are “detestable” cannot be dismissed as simply referring to uncleanness. Finally, the wages of all sin is (not was) death (Rom. 6:23), and that lesson is soberly evident in Lev. 20.

Romans 1:24–32. Paul commences his comprehensive presentation of the saving work of Christ and the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit by declaring that humankind stands utterly condemned (Rom. 1–3). The order that God intended for all creation has been disrupted because the creatures made in his image neither worship nor obey him, exchanging “the truth about God for a lie” (1:25). Thus, God gave them over to sexual impurity that explicitly includes homosexual activity on the part of both genders (1:26–27). Furthermore, the list that follows condemns every reader in every time and place. In every respect, what is commensurate with the knowledge of God has been intentionally rejected. None of these is in any way restricted in its meaning by cultural assumptions.

It is exegetically indefensible to state that Paul here refers only to women and men who are by nature heterosexual but have chosen to engage in homosexual activity. Further, to claim that this has to do only with certain kinds of sexual offenses (child molestation or ritual pagan rites), or that Paul could not have known about loving, committed same-sex relationships, is to underestimate Paul’s grasp of his own culture. There is a significant body of Hellenistic literature that recognizes nurturing homosexual relationships and explores the possible reasons for homoerotic impulses; Paul most likely knew it well. More significantly, these limited interpretations misread the intent of Paul in these chapters and seriously trivialize the matters of sin and grace. The fundamental message toward which Paul moves and that is the source of hope for all humankind is that the terrible price of human sin has been paid in the sacrificial blood of Christ, so that God became both just and the one who justifies (Rom. 3:26).

First Corinthians 6:9–11 (1 Tim. 1:10). The 1 Corinthians passage states that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God and then lists categories of offenders: the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, “those who are soft” (malakoi), homosexual offenders (arsenokoitai), thieves, the greedy, drunkards, slanderers, swindlers. The word arsenokoitai is made up of two Greek words that indicate “male” and “to lie with sexually.” Because these two words are used in the LXX of Lev. 18:22 (and 20:13), it is quite likely that Paul was specifically interpreting the Leviticus passages for his own audience, indicating that he saw them as still applicable. This clearly indicates that the behavior is reprehensible. The same term reappears in 1 Tim. 1:10 in a list of those who are ungodly and sinful. Again, however, what Paul goes on to say is most important in terms of his message of much needed grace: “And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:11).

Hermeneutical Considerations

Instruction regarding homosexual practice transcends specific chronological periods and genres of text. It is not only in the narrative and warning parts of the Torah; Paul repeatedly addresses the issue, particularly as he describes fallen humankind (Rom. 1; 1 Cor. 6; 1 Tim. 1). He does not qualify his descriptions to include only certain kinds of homosexual activity; instead, they are comprehensive. Homosexual practice is without exception represented in the text as morally offensive in God’s sight.

It is often claimed that “Jesus never condemned homosexuality,” and therefore we should not do so. He also, however, never addressed abortion, incest, or other contemporary ills that are reprehensible. On the other hand, he repeatedly affirmed traditional marriage by his references to Gen. 1:27 (“male and female he created them”) and 2:24 (“a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife”) when asked about issues of marriage and divorce (Matt. 19:1–12).

It is essential to note the deep ethical foundation that must shape the lives of all believers. God’s people are “to act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God” (Mic. 6:8). This injunction refers to the redemptive community that enfolds sinners of all stripes. In fact, the truth of the Gospel is a message of hope; it has everything to do with transformation and new life.

Homosexuality is a sexual relationship between two members of the same sex. It is a controversial issue today, especially as it relates to marriage and to serving in the ministry. Several key biblical texts stand at the center of interpreting the Bible’s stance and teachings on this subject.

The Biblical Texts

Genesis 19 (with Ezek. 16:49–50; Jude 7). The biblical narrative regarding the degradation and destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah indicates that their sin was grievous (Gen. 18:20; see also Gen. 13:13). When the two angelic visitors arrived, the men of the city, both young and old, asked to “know” (Heb. yada’) them. As an alternative, Lot offered his two virgin daughters, intended as sexual substitutes. While the Hebrew verb used here occurs frequently and characteristically simply means “to know,” ten times in Genesis it has strong overtones of sexual union. This narrative is sometimes dismissed as a case of gang rape, whereby power over foreigners was demonstrated in sexual terms. Likewise, some suggest that because no father in contemporary Western culture would ever offer his daughters to maintain the honor of guests, what this passage says about homosexuality also reflects cultural remnants of a bygone age. Thus, the incident would have nothing to do with homosexuality as demonstrated in consensual, committed same-sex relationships. In light of these alternative interpretations, it is necessary to investigate further the implications of this event and its subsequent interpretation in Scripture.

There are two explicit commentaries on the Genesis narrative later in the biblical canon. The first is provided by Ezekiel, from whom we learn that Sodom and the surrounding cities were “arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and they did detestable things before [God]” (Ezek. 16:49–50). The clause “they did detestable things” must be translated that way. The interpretation “it [i.e., the arrogance] was detestable” is unacceptable because the Hebrew verb is third-person feminine plural (“they did”), and the subject is Sodom and her sisters (the surrounding towns). Clearly, homosexual practice was not one singular sin there. It was one in the midst of a culture rife with things that were “detestable” in God’s eyes. “Detestable” is used over a hundred times in the Hebrew Bible of things that run absolutely counter to the nature of God. It also appears in Lev. 18; 20, addressed further below. The second direct response to the incident is Jude’s condemnation of the sexual license in Sodom and Gomorrah: the towns “gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion” (Jude 7).

In sum, Sodom and Gomorrah became the paradigm for comprehensively destructive evil (cf. Isa. 1:10; Jer. 23:14; Matt. 10:5–15; 11:20–24; Luke 10:1–15), representing societies entirely corrupt and hardened beyond repentance. This sobering characteristic is particularly evident in Jesus’ references to the cities. Furthermore, what we cannot ignore is that the Genesis narrative of that pervasive evil centers on the perversion of sexuality, starting with men wanting men, followed by Lot’s offering his daughters, and then Lot’s daughters engaging their father in sexual activity.

Judges 19. Tragically, this narrative thread is not isolated in Genesis. The same activity appears again in Judg. 19, where some of God’s people had adopted the ways of the debased Canaanite culture around them. In the narrative, a Levite stopped for the night in the town of Gibeah, a city of the tribe of Benjamin. Some men of the city demanded that his host give them access to him, and again a virgin daughter and the Levite’s concubine were offered in his place. Human sexuality and life itself were being abused in the most heinous ways; the narrative is a shocking testimony to the depths to which humankind can descend, as the Levite’s concubine was raped to death over a long night.

Leviticus 18:22; 20:13. The first of these passages forbids a man to “have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman,” indicating that it is “detestable,” or an “abomination” (KJV; Heb. to’ebah). It is not limited to the violent homosexual activity that characterized the previous narratives; rather, it is a general and blanket prohibition. Leviticus 20:13 pronounces the death penalty for that act.

Because these are in the so-called Holiness Code (Lev. 17–26), significant parts of which deal with ritual matters, some interpretations view these statements as merely addressing outdated purity issues, not sin. Furthermore, because the death penalty is indicated, they are dismissed as no longer relevant for the church. Nevertheless, the great majority of the other prohibitions and infractions noted in these chapters address troubling sexual activities (“uncovering the nakedness [’erwat] of . . .”), including incest, adultery, and bestiality, all of which are still clearly unacceptable. Furthermore, Lev. 19 contains significant ethical instructions, many of which reiterate the Ten Commandments. Thus, these texts must not be dismissed too hastily. Outside Leviticus, to’ebah is used of idolatrous worship, sexually immoral acts, and ethical infractions. Activities that are “detestable” cannot be dismissed as simply referring to uncleanness. Finally, the wages of all sin is (not was) death (Rom. 6:23), and that lesson is soberly evident in Lev. 20.

Romans 1:24–32. Paul commences his comprehensive presentation of the saving work of Christ and the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit by declaring that humankind stands utterly condemned (Rom. 1–3). The order that God intended for all creation has been disrupted because the creatures made in his image neither worship nor obey him, exchanging “the truth about God for a lie” (1:25). Thus, God gave them over to sexual impurity that explicitly includes homosexual activity on the part of both genders (1:26–27). Furthermore, the list that follows condemns every reader in every time and place. In every respect, what is commensurate with the knowledge of God has been intentionally rejected. None of these is in any way restricted in its meaning by cultural assumptions.

It is exegetically indefensible to state that Paul here refers only to women and men who are by nature heterosexual but have chosen to engage in homosexual activity. Further, to claim that this has to do only with certain kinds of sexual offenses (child molestation or ritual pagan rites), or that Paul could not have known about loving, committed same-sex relationships, is to underestimate Paul’s grasp of his own culture. There is a significant body of Hellenistic literature that recognizes nurturing homosexual relationships and explores the possible reasons for homoerotic impulses; Paul most likely knew it well. More significantly, these limited interpretations misread the intent of Paul in these chapters and seriously trivialize the matters of sin and grace. The fundamental message toward which Paul moves and that is the source of hope for all humankind is that the terrible price of human sin has been paid in the sacrificial blood of Christ, so that God became both just and the one who justifies (Rom. 3:26).

First Corinthians 6:9–11 (1 Tim. 1:10). The 1 Corinthians passage states that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God and then lists categories of offenders: the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, “those who are soft” (malakoi), homosexual offenders (arsenokoitai), thieves, the greedy, drunkards, slanderers, swindlers. The word arsenokoitai is made up of two Greek words that indicate “male” and “to lie with sexually.” Because these two words are used in the LXX of Lev. 18:22 (and 20:13), it is quite likely that Paul was specifically interpreting the Leviticus passages for his own audience, indicating that he saw them as still applicable. This clearly indicates that the behavior is reprehensible. The same term reappears in 1 Tim. 1:10 in a list of those who are ungodly and sinful. Again, however, what Paul goes on to say is most important in terms of his message of much needed grace: “And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:11).

Hermeneutical Considerations

Instruction regarding homosexual practice transcends specific chronological periods and genres of text. It is not only in the narrative and warning parts of the Torah; Paul repeatedly addresses the issue, particularly as he describes fallen humankind (Rom. 1; 1 Cor. 6; 1 Tim. 1). He does not qualify his descriptions to include only certain kinds of homosexual activity; instead, they are comprehensive. Homosexual practice is without exception represented in the text as morally offensive in God’s sight.

It is often claimed that “Jesus never condemned homosexuality,” and therefore we should not do so. He also, however, never addressed abortion, incest, or other contemporary ills that are reprehensible. On the other hand, he repeatedly affirmed traditional marriage by his references to Gen. 1:27 (“male and female he created them”) and 2:24 (“a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife”) when asked about issues of marriage and divorce (Matt. 19:1–12).

It is essential to note the deep ethical foundation that must shape the lives of all believers. God’s people are “to act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God” (Mic. 6:8). This injunction refers to the redemptive community that enfolds sinners of all stripes. In fact, the truth of the Gospel is a message of hope; it has everything to do with transformation and new life.

In Scripture, honesty usually is associated with upright business practices and speaking truthful words. Honesty frequently is linked with the use of weights and measures in business transactions. God calls for honesty in the buying and selling of products (Deut. 25:15; Job 31:6; Ezek. 45:10). Right conduct must characterize all business, labor, and work activities (cf. Eph. 4:28 NRSV).

Honesty is also used to refer to truthfulness of speech. Truthful, not false, witnessing characterizes God’s people (Prov. 12:17). The sage says that honest answers are pleasant; they are like a kiss on the lips (24:26). Although Jesus does not specifically use the word “honesty,” he instructs his disciples about honesty in making oaths. Let “yes” mean “yes”; nothing else is necessary (Matt. 5:33–37). Since God is honest and trustworthy, God’s people display the same quality (2 Cor. 1:15–22).

In Scripture, honesty usually is associated with upright business practices and speaking truthful words. Honesty frequently is linked with the use of weights and measures in business transactions. God calls for honesty in the buying and selling of products (Deut. 25:15; Job 31:6; Ezek. 45:10). Right conduct must characterize all business, labor, and work activities (cf. Eph. 4:28 NRSV).

Honesty is also used to refer to truthfulness of speech. Truthful, not false, witnessing characterizes God’s people (Prov. 12:17). The sage says that honest answers are pleasant; they are like a kiss on the lips (24:26). Although Jesus does not specifically use the word “honesty,” he instructs his disciples about honesty in making oaths. Let “yes” mean “yes”; nothing else is necessary (Matt. 5:33–37). Since God is honest and trustworthy, God’s people display the same quality (2 Cor. 1:15–22).

One of the things that make Israel a “good land” (Gen. 43:11; Deut. 8:7–10; Prov. 24:13), honey is a sweet aliment produced by bees or derived from flowers, and it has the unique quality of never spoiling (Ps. 19:10; Prov. 27:7; Ezek. 3:1; Rev. 10:9). The psalmist compares God’s word to the sweetness of honey (Ps. 119:103), and the sages liken the words of an adulteress to honey (Prov. 5:3). The biblical expression “land of milk and honey” refers to uncultivated land, which was ideal for the free growth of flowers and grazing (e.g., Exod. 3:8; Lev. 20:24; Num. 13:27). John the Baptist incorporated wild honey, along with locusts, into his diet, perhaps as a way of avoiding tithes to the temple, which were levied upon all cultivated food, but also to demonstrate God’s provision even in the wilderness (Matt. 3:4, 7).

In the ancient world, shame and honor are two binary opposites used to depict one’s status or behavior, which a culture approves or disapproves. The system of honor and shame serves as a primary means of social control. Thus, knowing how to act to conform to the code of social behavior expected by one’s group is essential to the maintenance of that community.

In the Bible, the noun “honor” is represented by kabod (from the verb “to be heavy”) in the OT, and by timē (from the verb “to honor”) in the NT. The reverse of honor is shame, which is represented by a variety of Hebrew and Greek terms, such as boshet in the OT, and aischynē in the NT.

In Israel, the Holiness Code (Lev. 17–26; cf. Num. 5:2–3; 8:6–7, 14–15) is comparable to the code of honor and shame. As a covenant community, Israel has the obligation to abide by the sanction imposed by God to attain honor (Deut. 4:6–8; 26:18–19; Pss. 34:5, 8–9; 37:18–19; 127:5; cf. 2 Chron. 26:18; Pss. 8:5; 62:7; 84:11; Rom. 2:7–11). Israel is honored (Exod. 32:11–12; Deut. 32:26–27) before the nations when God’s honor is upheld (Exod. 7:5; 10:1–2; 14:4, 17–18). Violation of covenantal stipulations—for example, deceptions in trading (Deut. 25:16), acts of “abomination” (Lev. 18:17, 22–23, 26–29), idolatry (Deut. 31:20; 32:15–17), and failure to perform duties prescribed in the law (Deut. 25:7–10)—results in disgrace before others (Exod. 32:25) and God (Deut. 28:25–26, 37).

The status of honor can be ascribed to an individual. A person is more honorable who is the firstborn (Gen. 49:3), comes from an esteemed family (Ps. 45:9), or is married into a dignified family (Gen. 41:45; Ruth 4:5). This worth will last a lifetime unless the reputation of the family is compromised, either because of economics (Ruth 1:1–21) or violation of the codes of conduct, such as adultery and incest (Exod. 20:14; Lev. 18:20; 20:10–21; Deut. 5:18; 22:22; Prov. 6:32–33), though not necessarily divorce (Deut. 24:1–4). Certain groups of people are honored because of special privilege granted to them (Prov. 8:15–16; Dan. 2:21; Rom. 13:1–5)—for example, priests (Exod. 28:2, 40; Ps. 110:4; Heb. 7:21), kings (Ps. 2:7), sages (Prov. 3:35), Israel (Exod. 19:6; Deut. 7:6; 8:11–9:7; 26:16–19), and the church (1 Pet. 2:9).

Wealth symbolizes one’s status and claims respect for its owners (Gen. 12:10–20; 14:21–24; 1 Kings 3:13; Prov. 3:16; 8:18; 22:4; Ps. 49:16; Isa. 61:6, 12) but does not equate the state of being poor with shame (cf. Ps. 12:5) unless it is a result of moral lassitude (Prov. 13:18). Parts of the human body symbolize worth and value. Certain parts of the body are less honorable than others, and to expose them is to invite disgrace (2 Sam. 10:4–5; 1 Chron. 19:4; Isa. 20:4; 1 Cor. 12:23–24).

The status of honor can also be achieved by an individual’s merits (cf. Rom. 2:7–11). Certain types of behavior are honorable—for example, humility (Prov. 15:33; 18:12; 29:23), taking care of one’s master (Prov. 27:18), honoring parents (Exod. 20:12; 21:15; 22:28; Prov. 19:26; Mal. 1:6; Matt. 15:4; Eph. 6:2), good service (Gen. 45:13), military exploits (2 Sam. 23:19–23; cf. 2 Chron. 32:21), almsgiving and justice (Prov. 21:21). One important aspect of achieving honor is the pursuit of wisdom. The ways of wisdom are honorable (Prov. 3:16–17; 4:8; 8:18), preserving a person from dishonor (Prov. 3:16–17, 31–33, 35; 24:14), but the ways of folly, such as injustice (Prov. 1:22; 14:31) and dishonoring parents (Prov. 30:17; cf. Exod. 20:12; 21:15; Lev. 20:9; Deut. 27:16), are a disgrace (Prov. 20:3; 26:1). The failure to perform one’s duty (Gen. 40:1–3) or a defeat in battle (Isa. 23:9; Lam. 1:8; Nah. 3:10) results in shame and, accordingly, loss of social status (Isa. 16:14; 23:9; Jer. 46:12; Lam. 1:6, 8; Hos. 4:7). An ultimate form of disgrace is to be hanged for public viewing (Deut. 21:22–23; Esther 5:14; 7:7–10; Matt. 27:32–44; Mark 15:22–32; Luke 23:33–43; John 19:17–24; 1 Cor. 1:18–25). In a patriarchal society, the status of women is obtained through their sexual exclusiveness. Their chastity (Gen. 38:24; Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:13–21; cf. 2 Sam. 13:13; Song 8:8–9) and fertility (Gen. 16:2; 30:2; 1 Sam. 1:3–8) become indicators of family and social worth.

In Isa. 3:23 the KJV translates the Hebrew word tsanip as “hood,” referring to an item of women’s apparel. This item, which was worn on the head, is represented variously in modern versions: “tiara” (NIV), “turban” (NRSV, ESV, NASB), “head covering” (NET), or “head ornament” (NLT).

A split hoof, together with chewing the cud, is the distinguishing mark of clean (edible) animals in Lev. 11:2–8; Deut. 14:4–8.

A piece of metal or other material, curved or bent back at an angle, used for catching hold of or hanging things. It is used metaphorically of God restraining King Sennacherib of Assyria from coming against King Hezekiah of Judah (2 Kings 19:28; Isa. 37:29). There were fishing hooks (Isa. 19:8; Matt. 17:27 NRSV) and pruning hooks (Isa. 18:5 NRSV). Hooks of gold were used in the tabernacle to hang utensils (Exod. 26:32).

A bird common in the Middle East. The hoopoe (Heb. dukipat) is about the size of a pigeon; it is pinkish fawn with black-and-white striped wings and tail, and a long, black-tipped head crest. It was considered sacred in Egypt, but it has notoriously filthy nesting habits. The OT lists it as unclean (Lev. 11:19; Deut. 14:18).

Scope and Uses of the Word “Hope”

At times simply indicating a wish (2 Cor. 11:1), in the Bible the word “hope” most often designates a disposition of soul, the grounds for one’s hope, or the outcome for which one hopes.

Those whom God has helped and delivered expect to see God’s power again when future needs arise, knowing that in God there are reasons for hope. Mere optimism assumes that bad circumstances will improve with the passing of time. In contrast, hope assumes that God is faithful and is convinced that he is able to bring about his good purpose (Isa. 44:1–8). So at its core, biblical hope is hope in God, rooted in God’s covenant faithfulness (Ps. 62:5–8; Jer. 14:8; 17:13; Rom. 4:18; 5:1–5). Hope trusts God in the present and lives even now on the strength of God’s future accomplishments (Gal. 5:5; Heb. 11:1).

Both of the main OT words for “hope” (Heb. roots qwh and ykhl) are at times translated “wait.” By definition, hope means that God’s promised outcome has not arrived, and that some time will pass before it does. But that time is filled with a sense of waiting on God, often with a deep ache of longing for God to act (see Pss. 25:16–21; 39:4–7; Isa. 40:28–31; Lam. 3:19–24).

The inner disposition of hope may be seriously threatened by injustice and other devastating life experiences, as reflected in Job 6:8–13; 14:19; 19:10. The refrain of Pss. 42:5–6, 11; 43:5 is a psalmist’s self-exhortation to hope amid oppressive and depressing circumstances: “Why, my soul, are you downcast? Why so disturbed within me? Put your hope in God, for I will yet praise him, my Savior and my God.” Words for “hope” function similarly in other psalms of lament (Pss. 9:18; 31:24; 71:5, 14; cf. Mic. 7:7).

The OT usually locates individual hope within the horizon and limits of this world. One hopes for outcomes that may be realized in one’s own lifetime; indeed, when life ends, hope ends (Prov. 11:7; 24:20; Eccles. 9:4; Isa. 38:18). Proverbs that mention hope regarding someone’s character development show an underlying concern that God’s purposes be vindicated in one’s life (e.g., Prov. 19:18; 26:12). When used in conjunction with Israel as a whole, hope looks to a more distant future and coming generations.

In the NT, hope is closely associated with Christ and his saving work. Christians now live by hope in Christ (Eph. 1:12; 1 Pet. 1:3; 3:15); indeed, he is “Christ Jesus our hope” (1 Tim. 1:1), and his future appearing is “the blessed hope” (Titus 2:13). Thus, hope refers to eschatological glory (2 Cor. 3:11–12; Eph. 1:18). It is “the hope of the resurrection” (Acts 23:6; cf. 24:15; 26:6–9), our transformation into Christ’s likeness (1 John 3:1–3). That expectation stimulates various hopes for God’s plans to be realized in one’s own or others’ lives (1 Cor. 9:10, 13; Phil. 2:19, 23; 2 Tim. 2:25; 2 John 12). So hope is named repeatedly as an essential Christian attribute (Rom. 12:12; 15:4, 13; 1 Cor. 13:13).

Hope as a Biblical Theme

With the God of hope as its covenant Lord, hope is a defining reality for Israel and a persistent theme in the historical books (e.g., 2 Sam. 23:1–7; 2 Kings 25:27–30). Psalmists find hope either in continuity with present structures (Ps. 37) or in drastic change (Pss. 33; 82), such as personal or corporate restoration.

Judgment dominates the message of the preexilic prophets, although expressions of hope are also found. But Judah’s downfall in 587/586 BC marks a turning point in prophetic hope. While preexilic prophecy bases its indictment, appeal, and warning in the exodus and the covenant, Jeremiah and Ezekiel tend to redirect hope and expectation to a new work of salvation that God will accomplish through and after the judgment of exile (e.g., Jer. 31:31–34; Ezek. 11:16–21; cf. Isa. 43:18–19). In the wake of Judah’s destruction, these prophets grasp a remarkable new vision of grace and promise. Restoration will be personal as well as national; forgiveness of sin will enable obedience to God’s law, now to be found written on their hearts.

During the exile, collection of Israel’s sacred texts enabled the shattered community to sustain identity and hope. Postexilic prophecy is often “text prophecy” that arises from reflection upon and reapplication of written prophecies, psalms, and other scriptural texts. For example, the book of Zechariah (especially chaps. 9–14) alludes to many earlier writings and also moves toward apocalyptic literature, contributing dramatic new imagery of God’s conquest of evil to establish his cosmic reign and fulfill his covenant. Messianic hopes rose throughout this period, fueled by earlier prophecies (e.g., Isa. 9; 11; 65:17; Jer. 23:5; Mic. 5:2).

If the OT gives occasional hints of an afterlife, this hope becomes manifest in the NT (2 Tim. 1:10). Jesus promises the thief on the cross fellowship after death (Luke 23:43). For Paul, “to depart and be with Christ” is such a vivid hope that “to die is gain” (Phil. 1:21–24). Such texts imply that death ushers the believer into Christ’s presence. Yet this intermediate state is not the whole picture. We are saved in hope of the redemption of our bodies (Rom. 8:23–25)—our resurrection from the dead and entry into a new glorified, bodily existence (1 Cor. 15; Phil. 3:20–21).

Christ is judge as well as savior (Matt. 16:27; 25:31–46; Acts 17:31; Rom. 2:16), and the NT anticipates final judgment of all persons and powers arrayed against God, including sin and death (1 Cor. 15:24–26; 2 Thess. 1:5–10). Christian hope involves nothing less than the return and full revelation of Jesus Christ, the resurrection of the dead, and the renewal of all creation (1 Thess. 4:13–18; Rev. 21–22)—the complete vindication of God’s rule, secured already in Christ. Then God’s redeemed people will see his face and live in his presence forever (Matt. 5:8; Jude 24; Rev. 22:4). A vision of this future enables us to press on with hope, stretching toward what is to come (Phil. 3:13–14).

One of the two sons of the priest Eli at Shiloh (1 Sam. 1:3). Hophni and Phinehas were corrupt priests: they abused worshipers by demanding more than their priestly share (2:12–17) and had sexual relationships with women serving at the sanctuary (2:22). After they rejected their father’s rebuke (2:23–25), their judgment was announced in 1 Sam. 2:27–36. This was fulfilled when both died in battle (4:11).

Known as Apries in Greek historical texts, he was an Egyptian pharaoh of the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty (r. 589–570 BC). In 587 BC, during a period of Egyptian-Babylonian competition in Syria-Palestine, Hophra sent his army north and temporarily drove away the Babylonian army that was besieging Jerusalem (Jer. 37:5 [Hophra is the unnamed pharaoh]). He is named once in the Bible (Jer. 44:30), where Jeremiah predicts that Hophra would be vanquished by the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar, just like the rebellious Judahite king Zedekiah. Those Judeans who had fled from Nebuchadnezzar to Hophra’s Egypt had misplaced their trust. Hophra later was assassinated.

The name of the seventeenth location at which the Israelites encamped on their journey from Egypt to the promised land (Num. 33:32–33). Although the Hebrew word khor means “cave,” the LXX translates the phrase as “mountain of Gadgad.” This location is called “Gudgodah” in Deut. 10:7. The Samaritan Pentateuch reads “Hor Haggudodah.” It was the next destination following the death of Aaron, who died at Moserah. The exact location remains uncertain.

The king of Gezer, a Canaanite city (Josh. 10:33). He attempted to rescue Lachish, another Canaanite city defeated by Joshua and Israel as they took over the promised land, but his army was completely destroyed, leaving no survivors.

An alternate name for the desert range and mountain called “Sinai” (Exod. 3:1; 17:6; 33:6; Deut. 1:2, 6, 19; 4:10, 15; 5:2; 9:8; 18:16; 29:1; 1 Kings 8:9; 19:8; 2 Chron. 5:10; Ps. 106:19; Mal. 4:4).

A town allotted to the tribe of Naphtali (Josh. 19:38). Its precise location within this tribal allotment is unknown.

A transliteration of the Hebrew term khoreshah, occurring in 1 Sam. 23:15–16, 18–19. While the KJV and the NKJV render it as a common noun, “wood/forest,” most modern versions treat it as a place name, “Horesh.” It was located in the wilderness of Ziph, southeast of Hebron. David hid from Saul in Horesh (1 Sam. 23:15), and Saul’s son Jonathan went there to make a covenant with David (23:16, 18). The people of Ziph reported to Saul that David was hiding in Horesh (23:19), and Saul pursued him there, setting up the story of David sparing Saul’s life to prove his loyalty to God’s anointed king (1 Sam. 24).

(1) A son of Lotan, a Horite chief of the land Seir, the land which was later taken over by descendants of Esau (Gen. 36:22; 1 Chron. 1:39). (2) The father of Shaphat, a leader from the tribe of Simeon who was one of the twelve spies sent out to explore the land of Canaan (Num. 13:5).

The inhabitants of the Mount Seir region. The etymology of their name has often been related to the Hebrew term for “cave dweller,” but this is incorrect. “Horites” may be the biblical name for the Hurrians. The Hurrians were Semites. They were one of the people groups defeated by Kedorlaomer in the time of Abraham (Gen. 14:6). Egyptian sources and name etymology indicate that the Hurrians were in the area of Palestine by the fourteenth century BC. As indicated by the LXX, and no doubt due to changes in words moving from one language to another, the biblical designation “Hivite” most likely refers to the same people group (Gen. 34:2; 36:2).

Esau and his descendants, the Edomites, conquered the Mount Seir region and forcibly removed the majority of the Horite people in a manner that paralleled the conquest of the Canaanites by the Israelites (Deut. 2:12, 22). However, some early intermarriage apparently took place between Esau and the Horites (Gen. 36:2). Apparently, some of the Horites (Hivites) were living in the area of Canaan (Exod. 3:8, 17; 13:5; 33:2; 34:11; Deut. 20:17; Josh. 3:10; 9:1; 11:3; 12:8; 24:11). Genesis 10:17 lists the Horites (Hivites) as descendants of Canaan. Shechem, who raped Jacob and Leah’s daughter Dinah, is said to be a Horite (Hivite; Gen. 34:2).

A location first mentioned in the book of Numbers, when the Israelites disobeyed God’s word and were defeated and beaten all the way to Hormah by the Canaanites and the Amalekites, as predicted (Num. 14:45; Deut. 1:44). In addition to being a specific location, “Hormah” (Heb. kharemah) can also have a generic meaning as “place of destruction [kharemah].” In Num. 21:1–3 the Israelites completely destroyed Canaanite cities, and the place or cluster of cities is called “Hormah” (21:3). It was evidently rebuilt and later conquered by Joshua, as the list indicates (Josh. 12:14). Hormah was allotted to Judah (Josh. 15:30) and then reassigned to Simeon (Josh. 19:4; 1 Chron. 4:30) as its tribal inheritance. Later, Judah and Simeon collaborated to defeat and destroy the Canaanite city Zephath, and so they renamed it “Hormah.” It is one of the cities to which David sent his share of booty taken from the Amalekites (1 Sam. 30:30). Its location has been variously conjectured as Tell esh-Sheriah, about twelve miles northwest of Beersheba; Tell el-Milh, about seven miles northeast of Beersheba; Tell Masos; Tell Ira.

The Hebrew term for “horn” (qeren) refers to a bony protrusion on an animal’s head, like those belonging to the ram (Gen. 22:13), ox (Deut. 33:17), and goat (Dan. 8:5). More broadly the term indicates any hornlike projection, as in “ivory tusks” (qarnot shen, lit., “horns of tooth” [Ezek. 27:15]). It may also indicate an object fashioned from or resembling an animal’s horn—for example, a shopar, or “trumpet” made from a ram’s horn (qeren hayyobel [Josh. 6:5]); a receptacle for oil (1 Sam. 16:1, 13; 1 Kings 1:39); and, notably, the protrusions at the corners of an altar (Exod. 27:2; 30:2). In Israel’s worship, blood was dabbed on the horns of the altar to purify it (Lev. 8:15; 16:18) and to make atonement for sin (Lev. 4:7, 18, 25, 30, 34). This came to be regarded as a place of refuge (1 Kings 1:50, 51; 2:28).

In the OT, horns are emblematic of vitality and strength. David praises Yahweh as “the horn of my salvation”—that is, a mighty deliverer (2 Sam. 22:3 = Ps. 18:2). The appellation evokes Yahweh’s special commitment to uphold the king’s horn (see 1 Sam. 2:10; Pss. 89:24; 132:17). The king is similarly identified as the horn of his people (Pss. 89:17–18; 148:14), denoting both his role as protector and his duty to uphold justice. As instruments of defense and dominance among animals, horns especially symbolize martial prowess (Deut. 33:17; 1 Kings 22:11). This sense figures in pronouncements of judgment upon Israel (Lam. 2:3, 17) and hope for Israel’s restoration (Mic. 4:13).

In reference to human beings, qeren connotes demeanor. To bury one’s horn in the dust is to affect mourning and abasement (Job 16:15 [NIV: “brow”]). Conversely, to elevate one’s horn is to place confidence in one’s own strength in defiance of God (Ps. 75:4–5). Righteous persons look to Yahweh to strengthen and vindicate them (Ps. 92:10; cf. 75:10).

In Daniel’s visions, “horn” designates rulers (7:24), and kingdoms (8:22), which figure in the schematized portrayal of history. Among them, the “large horn” (8:8, 21) signifies Alexander the Great, while the four horns (8:22) represent the dissolution of his empire following his death. The “little/small horn” (7:8; 8:9–12) signifies Antiochus IV Epiphanes (see 8:23–25). In Zechariah’s vision (1:18–21), “horn” generally indicates nations that oppress Judah.

In the NT, the Greek word keras exhibits a semantic range similar to Hebrew qeren. Jesus is “a horn of salvation” for all Israel (Luke 1:69). Revelation 9:13 mentions “the four horns of the golden altar” that stands before God; elsewhere, “horn” symbolizes the power of the Lamb or of the red dragon (5:6; 12:3) or designates eschatological rulers (17:12).

Also known as the desert horned viper, a venomous snake (Cerastes cerastes) found in North Africa, the Sinai Peninsula, Israel, and Arabia. Its name comes from its horny protrusions above each eye. A few versions render the Hebrew term shepipon as “horned snake” in Gen. 49:17 (NASB, REB), though most translate it as “viper.”

Isaiah and Jeremiah mention Horonaim, a town in southern Moab, in the context of divine judgment upon the Moabites for their sin of idolatry and pride (Isa. 15:5; Jer. 48:3, 5, 34). From north to south they will flee an invasion. The prophets’ description places Horonaim along a road heading from the Moabite plateau to the Arabah. Its exact location is unknown. If the NIV is correct in following the LXX reading of 2 Sam. 13:34 (the Hebrew text has “the road behind him”), the Horonaim mentioned probably refers to Beth Horon, eleven miles northwest of Jerusalem.

Probably a designation for a citizen of Beth Horon, a town located about eleven miles northwest of Jerusalem. In the Bible it is used only for Sanballat, who, along with Tobiah, opposed the rebuilding of Jerusalem’s wall under the direction of Nehemiah (Neh. 2:10, 19; 13:28).

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

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

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

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

A gate of Jerusalem. The biblical text describes a gate located on the eastern wall of the city on the southeast side of the temple precinct (Neh. 3:28; Jer. 31:40) and a gate that gave entrance to the royal compound (2 Kings 11:16; 2 Chron. 23:15). Some think that there were two Horse Gates. However, it is possible that it is one gate, which was located in the eastern city wall that led into the royal compound where the stables would have been, just southeast of the temple precinct.

The OT writers frequently mention horsemen in military contexts, often in connection with chariots. As the NIV text notes indicate (e.g., Exod. 14:9), the Hebrew word for “horseman” (parash) may also be translated “charioteer,” but most likely the word simply referred to a warrior on horseback. See also Rev. 6:1–8.

(1) A Levite and descendant of Merari who was designated the gatekeeper of the tent holding the ark of the covenant after David brought it to Jerusalem (1 Chron. 16:38). Hosah and his descendants were responsible for guarding the “West Gate and the Shalleketh Gate on the upper road” (1 Chron. 26:10–11, 16). (2) A coastal city on the northern boundary of Asher near Tyre mentioned in the allotment of tribal territories (Josh. 19:29). Hosah is identified by most scholars with Tell Rashidiyeh and is called Usu in Assyrian and Egyptian texts.

The cry of the crowds at Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem (Matt. 21:9, 15; Mark 11:9–10; John 12:13), meaning literally “Save, now” (Heb. hoshi’ah na’). The term comes from Ps. 118:25–26, which reads, “Lord, save us. . . . Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.” In using “hosanna,” the people are identifying Jesus as the Messiah. The unusual use of the word as an exclamation of praise in the Gospels indicates that “hosanna” may have been used as a word of praise by early Christians, who then carried that new meaning back into the Gospel accounts.

One of the earliest prophets to have his oracles collected in a book, he ministered for approximately forty years in Israel (c. 760–720 BC), beginning during the reign of Jeroboam II (c. 784–748 BC) and perhaps extending beyond the fall of Israel in 722 BC. He was the son of Beeri, but apart from his immediate family little is known about his life. He is never mentioned elsewhere in the Bible, and the biographical information given about him at the beginning of the book of Hosea (1:1–2:1; 3:1–5) is confusing.

God gave Hosea a bizarre command to marry a prostitute to symbolize God’s relationship with his unfaithful people Israel. He obeyed and married Gomer, who then bore two sons, Jezreel (“God Sows”) and Lo-Ammi (“Not My People”), as well as a daughter, Lo-Ruhamah (“Not Pitied”). Jezreel’s name was meant to warn Israel that God would judge the royal house of Jeroboam II because of the blood spilled in the Jezreel Valley by his great-grandfather Jehu (2 Kings 9:36–37; 10:6–7, 11). The name “Lo-Ruhamah” signified that God would no longer show pity on Israel, and the name “Lo-Ammi” signified that God would no longer consider Israel his people. The importance of these names is seen as the themes of sowing (Hos. 2:23; 8:7; 10:12), God showing pity (2:1, 4, 23; 14:3), and Israel as the people of God (2:1, 23; 4:6, 8, 12; 11:7) reappear throughout the book of Hosea. The text makes it explicit that Hosea was the father of Jezreel, but it does not clarify the identity of the father(s) of Lo-Ruhamah and Lo-Ammi, suggesting that Gomer may have returned to her old profession after the birth of Jezreel. God also commands Hosea to bring back an unnamed woman and to love her, which presumably refers to Gomer after she had deserted her husband (3:1–5).

In Dan. 3:21 the KJV translates an Aramaic term of uncertain meaning, petash, as “hosen” (NIV: “trousers”). Given the context, the term clearly refers to an item of clothing. “Hosen” is an archaic word for “pants” (cf. German Lederhosen).

(1) The father of Jezaniah, one of the army officers who received counsel from Jeremiah as they contemplated fleeing to Egypt (Jer. 42:1). Jezanaiah is called “Azariah” in Jer. 43:2. (2) A man assigned to lead half of the leaders of Judah in the procession at the Ezra-Nehemiah covenant renewal ceremony (Neh. 12:32).

A descendant of Jehoiachin, king of Judah, who in 597 BC was carried off into Babylonian exile (1 Chron. 3:18).

(1) The son of Nun, he was renamed “Joshua” by Moses (Num. 13:8, 16; cf. Deut. 32:44 KJV). See Joshua. (2) The son of Elah, he was the last king of the northern kingdom, Israel (733–724 BC). He attained the throne through assassinating Pekah (2 Kings 15:30). When Shalmaneser, the king of Assyria, discovered that Hoshea had stopped paying him tribute, he imprisoned Hoshea and laid siege to Samaria. The Assyrians eventually captured the city and sent the Israelites into exile (2 Kings 17:1–6). (3) The son of Azaziah, he was a leader of the tribe of Ephraim during the reign of David (1 Chron. 27:20). (4) One of the “leaders of the people” who sealed the covenant with God following Ezra’s public reading of the law (Neh. 10:23).

The practice of receiving strangers in order to offer provision and protection was an important concept in many of the cultures throughout the time period of both Testaments.

Hospitality first appears in Abraham’s care of the strangers who visit him in Gen. 18. The strangers in turn reveal God’s imminent fulfillment of his promise to provide a child to Abraham and Sarah. Thus, they return the good favor and kindness that they have received, which is the expected pattern of mutual goodwill that characterizes hospitality.

The unusual hospitality of Rebekah in offering water for Abraham’s servant’s camels distinguishes her as the wife whom God had appointed for Isaac (Gen. 24:1–49).

Part of the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah is that the men violate hospitality norms by demanding that the visiting angels have sex with them, which is in deep contrast to Lot’s attempt to welcome and protect the visitors (Gen. 19:1–9; see also Ezek. 16:49–50).

A conviction of the people of Israel is that God is their host in the promised land (Lev. 25:23). Jesus frequently is the beneficiary of the hospitality of others in the Gospels, and he sends out his disciples relying on it (Luke 9:1–4; 10:1–9). The messianic banquet is a theme of Jesus’ teaching on the kingdom of God (Matt. 8:11; 22:1–14; Luke 14:16–24). Hospitality is also commanded to be an aspect of early Christian communities, and it is a spiritual gift (Rom. 12:8, 13; Heb. 13:2; 1 Pet. 4:9).

A KJV phrase used to describe the heavenly bodies or heavenly beings. The NIV prefers “starry host(s),” “multitudes of heaven,” or “stars in the heavens/sky,” but “host of the heavens” does occur in Dan. 8:10. The Hebrew phrase, tseba’ hashamayim, means literally “army of the heavens.” The connection between the celestial elements and an army comes in conjunction with God’s role as the commander of the Israelite forces (Josh. 5:13–15; Judg. 5:23). There are times when the Bible portrays the celestial elements as part of God’s military retinue, fighting on his behalf. The stars fight from heaven against Sisera (Judg. 5:20), and in the Israelites’ battle against the Amorites, the sun and the moon are commanded to stand still (Josh. 10:12–13; cf. Hab. 3:11). Based on these passages, the phrase may have had some military background, but it is also understood in other ways.

Perhaps one of the more enigmatic uses of the phrase occurs in 1 Kings 22:19 (cf. 2 Chron. 18:18; NIV: “multitudes of heaven”), where it describes God’s council. There are other biblical phrases used with more frequency to describe the heavenly council surrounding God. Other names for these beings include the “seraphim” of Isa. 6:2 and the “sons of God” in Job 1:6; 2:1; Pss. 29:1; 89:6. The connection between God’s council and the celestial elements likely comes, as noted above, through the heavenly bodies’ association with God in battle. Further solidifying this connection is Job 38:7, where the “sons of God” parallel the “morning stars.” Exactly what these heavenly beings are is debated, and many interpreters suggest the answer lies in the polytheistic context of Israel’s neighbors. Another possible explanation is to view these beings as the messengers or angels of God. The Bible portrays them as inferior beings (Deut. 3:24; 10:17; Jer. 10:6), and they function to serve and worship Yahweh (Pss. 29:1; 103:21; 148:2–3; Isa. 6:2). The angels who appear to the shepherds at Jesus’ birth are described as the “heavenly host” (Luke 2:13).

The last and most frequent use of the phrase “host of heaven” is to describe a condemned object of Israelite worship. It is likely that from their association with God’s council, these celestial elements gained an independent status and were worshiped apart from God. At times the “host of heaven” appears to refer to the stars alone; the NIV therefore translates it as “stars in the sky” (Deut. 17:3; Jer. 33:22; cf. Jer. 8:2) or “starry hosts” (2 Kings 23:5). At other times the phrase refers to the totality of the heavenly bodies (Deut. 4:19 [NIV: “heavenly array”]; cf. 2 Kings 21:3, 5). Based on the distribution of the phrase, and its occurrence primarily in documents narrating the Assyrian period (2 Kings 17:16; 21:3, 5; 23:4–5; Jer. 19:13; Zeph. 1:5), there is likely a direct correlation between the worship of the host of heaven and Israel’s Assyrian vassalage in the seventh century BC. The extent of Assyrian impact on Israelite religion is debated, but it is likely that astral worship—that is, worship of the starry hosts—flourished in this period due to the influence of the Assyrians, a culture entrenched in worship of the astral powers.

A prisoner taken to be used as leverage for negotiation or to aid in control of the defeated populace after a conflict. Jehoash of Israel took hostages after he defeated King Amaziah of Judah (2 Kings 14:3–14; 2 Chron. 25:23–24).

(1) One of the sons of Heber from the tribe of Asher (1 Chron. 7:32). (2) An Aroerite, the father of Shama and Jeliel, listed among David’s mighty men (1 Chron. 11:44).

(1) One of the sons of Heber from the tribe of Asher (1 Chron. 7:32). (2) An Aroerite, the father of Shama and Jeliel, listed among David’s mighty men (1 Chron. 11:44).

A temple musician, he served under the supervision of his father, Heman, King David’s seer (1 Chron. 25:4–5). He led the twenty-first division of temple musicians (1 Chron. 25:28).

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

The precise and consistent division of time into hours, minutes, and seconds is a feature of modern life first made possible by the widespread use of mechanical clocks in the late Middle Ages. Biblical texts reflect an earlier situation in which timekeeping was primarily a matter of celestial observation. NT references to “hours” fall into two broad categories: first, timekeeping by means of numbered hours; and second, the use of the word “hour” in the sense of “moment,” a short, indefinite period of time (e.g., Matt. 8:13; John 16:2), as the hour was the basic unit of measurable time (see Rev. 9:15).

Jesus observed that the day was divided into twelve hours (John 11:9). Jesus was crucified at the third hour (9 a.m.); it was dark from the sixth hour (noon) until the ninth hour (3 p.m.), at which point Jesus died (Matt. 27:45–46; Mark 15:25, 33; Luke 23:44; John 19:14). In one parable, a landowner hired workers at the third, sixth, ninth, and eleventh hours (Matt. 20:3–12). The book of Acts also reports events occurring at the third, sixth, and ninth hours (Acts 2:15; 3:1; 10:3, 9). Such passages suggest that actual reckoning was often less precise even than the twelve-hour scheme permitted, and that the day was more roughly divided into four parts of three hours each. The Gospel of John provides the most precise time indications, mentioning the tenth hour (4 p.m. [John 1:39]) and the seventh hour (1 p.m. [John 4:52]). One text names an “hour of dinner” (Luke 14:17; see also 22:14), and another indicates that the ninth hour (3 p.m.) was an “hour of prayer” (Acts 3:1; see also 10:30).

The night was divided into three or four “watches,” of which the NT mentions the second, third (Luke 12:38), and fourth (Matt. 14:25; Mark 6:48). The OT mentions nocturnal watches (Pss. 63:6; 90:4; 119:148; Lam. 2:19), including in military contexts (Exod. 14:24; Judg. 7:19; 1 Sam. 11:11), from which the term with the sense of standing guard is derived. The OT watches are not numbered, but are referred to as “middle” or “last.” The system of watches did not preclude the counting of hours during the night, as in Acts 23:23, which refers to the third hour of the night (9 p.m.).

In addition to the numbered hours of the day, the hour is also used to measure the passage of time, as in Acts 19:34, where a crowd riots for two hours (see also Matt. 26:40; Luke 22:59; Acts 5:7; Rev. 17:12). One text refers to a half-hour period (Rev. 8:1).

Numerous texts refer to hours of future trial (Matt. 10:19; Rev. 3:10), including an eschatological or “last hour” (e.g., Mark 13:32; 1 John 2:18). The suffering and death of Jesus is also referred to as his “hour” (e.g., Mark 14:35; 14:41; John 12:23, 27).

In ancient Israel, as an agricultural community, the house was the center of family life. Apart from daily family activities, the basic functions of an Israelite house were for storage and stabling.

A typical house in Iron Age Palestine was basically rectangular in shape, constructed of sun-dried mud-bricks, and completely roofed. It consisted of either three or four rooms, although in some rare occasions it was a two-room house. The size of the house varied, depending on the wealth of the owner. Structurally, the most important and noticeable features were the pillars, generally made of stone. These monolithic pillars separated the rooms from the courtyard and supported the flat roof or ceiling. A three-room house usually consisted of a row of pillars in the center of the structure, while a four-room house consisted of two rows, dividing the two side rooms, with the courtyard in the middle.

Walls provided enclosure for a family unit but could also serve as partitions between adjacent houses. They were constructed of mud-brick (cf. Exod. 5:7) and erected on a stone foundation. The exterior of the walls needed regular whitewashing to prevent erosion caused by winter rain (cf. Ezek. 13:10–18), and the interior walls were decorated with painted line ornaments (Jer. 22:14). Unlike modern windows, Israelite windows were essentially slits in the walls, without glass filling (Josh. 2:15; 2 Cor. 11:33). For security and climate control, they were small, but they were good enough for natural lighting and ventilation (cf. Hos. 13:3). Oil lamps were placed in the wall niches (2 Kings 4:10; Matt. 5:15).

The entrance to the house usually was in the center of the front wall. The door, which opened inward, was mounted with three wooden doorframes on two sides and on top of the wooden door (cf. Exod. 12:7, 22–23). The door was locked from the inside with a tumbler lock and a wooden bolt (Judg. 3:25; Neh. 3:3). From outside, it was accessed through a fist-sized keyhole (Song 5:4) with a large key (Isa. 22:22). A stone threshold (1 Kings 14:17; cf. 1 Sam. 5:4–5) was laid at the base of the door.

The ceiling of the ground floor was less than six feet high. The central room was used for work such as food processing, although cooking was also done outdoors. A hearth was a hole in the ground used to set fire for cooking or for warmth (Jer. 36:22). The side rooms were used for stables (1 Sam. 28:24). At the rear of the house was a broad room (cf. Ps. 128:3; Amos 6:10) used mainly for storage purposes. The floor of the courtyard was laid with beaten earth, while the rooms had dirt floors. The upper level, which served as a place for sleeping, dining, and leisure activities (1 Kings 17:19; 2 Kings 4:10; Mark 14:15; Acts 9:37), was accessed through a wooden ladder from inside the house or through a stone staircase from the outside.

A unique feature of Israelite houses was the roof. The flat, plastered roof served as the place for domestic activities (e.g., Josh. 2:6–8; 1 Sam. 9:25–26; 2 Sam. 11:2) and religious activities (Jer. 19:13; 32:29; Zeph. 1:5; Acts 10:9), especially during hot weather. It was not uncommon for grass to grow on it (Isa. 37:27). Since it was flat, waterproofing was a pressing problem. As such, constant compacting and resurfacing of the roof with a limestone roller was needed (cf. Eccles. 10:18). For safety, parapets were built around the roof (Deut. 22:8). Since the roof was elevated and public, activities there were noticeable by people outside; thus public announcement could be made from the roof (Matt. 10:27; Luke 12:3). Absalom had sexual intercourse with David’s concubines on a rooftop, which might have been an act of public declaration of his kingship (2 Sam. 16:22).

In Ezra 6:1 the KJV translates the Hebrew phrase bet siprayya’ as “house of the rolls,” referring to archives stored in the royal treasury of Babylon. Most modern versions render the phrase as “archives.” King Darius ordered the archives to be searched to determine whether Cyrus had in fact issued orders for the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem (Ezra 5:17). Similar archives were kept by most royal dynasties in the ancient Near East.

A building constructed by Solomon as part of the palace compound. It was a large, detached building that possibly served as a royal reception hall. The dimensions were twenty-five by fifty meters (1 Kings 7:2–5). The name derives from its cedar pillars, imported from Lebanon and constructed to resemble a forest. The Hebrew text records four rows with fifteen pillars, while the LXX records three rows.

A building referring to some type of barracks, possibly housing David’s mighty warriors mentioned in 2 Sam. 23:8–39; 1 Chron. 11:10–41. Nehemiah mentions it in conjunction with the tombs of David, but the location is still unknown (Neh. 3:16).

In Ezra 6:1 the KJV translates the Hebrew phrase bet siprayya’ as “house of the rolls,” referring to archives stored in the royal treasury of Babylon. Most modern versions render the phrase as “archives.” King Darius ordered the archives to be searched to determine whether Cyrus had in fact issued orders for the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem (Ezra 5:17). Similar archives were kept by most royal dynasties in the ancient Near East.

A building referring to some type of barracks, possibly housing David’s mighty warriors mentioned in 2 Sam. 23:8–39; 1 Chron. 11:10–41. Nehemiah mentions it in conjunction with the tombs of David, but the location is still unknown (Neh. 3:16).

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

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

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

Patriarchal Structures

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

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

Aristotelian Household Codes

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

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

Marriage and Divorce

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

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

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

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

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

Children, Parenting, and Education

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

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

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

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

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

Family as an Analogy

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

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

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

The exact taxonomic identification of the howling creatures in Isa. 13:21 (NIV: “jackals”) remains elusive, and a look at the many translations demonstrates this. The Hebrew word ’ochim has been translated as “shriekers,” “owls,” and “doleful creatures,” and yet others have understood it mythologically. Isaiah is using the image of these scavenging animals to paint a metaphorical picture in which desert creatures inhabit the empty houses of the ruined, deserted city of Babylon.

In 2 Chron. 33:19 the Hebrew phrase dibre khozay is taken by some to refer to the “records of Hozai,” referring to the author of a history of King Manasseh that the author of Chronicles used as a source. However, most translations understand khozay not to be a proper name but rather to mean “seers” (as the LXX understood it), indicating anonymous prophets who wrote the history of Manasseh: “records of the seers” (NIV, NRSV).

Cast metal wheel hubs are mentioned in the description of wheeled cult stands in 1 Kings 7:33. Cult stands matching this description were found in Crete, and cast wheels of this kind were found at Tel Miqne-Ekron.

A descendant of Asher through Shomer (1 Chron. 7:34). Some English versions (KJV, NASB, ESV) render his name “Jehubbah,” following the Kethib reading yakhbah. The LXX supports “Hubbah.”

A town in southwestern Naphtali near the border with Asher and Zebulun (Josh. 19:34). The modern site of Khirbet el-Jemeija fits well, situated some fifteen miles west of the Sea of Galilee but still in Naphtali, near the border with Asher not far from Zebulun. Some connect Hukkok to modern Yakuk, just three and a half miles northwest of the Sea of Galilee, but this appears to be too far east. Further complicating the matter, 1 Chron. 6:75 names Hukok as a Levitical city from the tribe of Asher instead, while the parallel of Josh. 21:31 has Helkath rather than Hukok.

A town in southwestern Naphtali near the border with Asher and Zebulun (Josh. 19:34). The modern site of Khirbet el-Jemeija fits well, situated some fifteen miles west of the Sea of Galilee but still in Naphtali, near the border with Asher not far from Zebulun. Some connect Hukkok to modern Yakuk, just three and a half miles northwest of the Sea of Galilee, but this appears to be too far east. Further complicating the matter, 1 Chron. 6:75 names Hukok as a Levitical city from the tribe of Asher instead, while the parallel of Josh. 21:31 has Helkath rather than Hukok.

The second son of Aram, and a grandson of Shem (Gen. 10:23; 1 Chron. 1:17). The geographic location of his descendants is currently unknown.

A faithful prophetess of God serving during the time of King Josiah. When Josiah discovers the book of Deuteronomy while cleaning out the temple, he sends his advisers to inquire of God about the judgments in the book. They go to Huldah, who is identified as a prophet. In typical prophetic fashion, she delivers the word of the Lord (2 Kings 22:14–20), underscoring judgment on the disobedient and unrepentant but blessing on those, like Josiah, who have a repentant heart.

The act of killing a human being as an offering to a deity in a religious ritual.

In the OT, human sacrifice is most closely associated with the worship of Molek, a Canaanite deity of Phoenician origin. Molek’s name in Scripture is derived from the Hebrew word for “king,” melek, but using the vowel pattern of bosheth, which means “shame.” Human sacrifice was not limited to Molek; it was also part of Chemosh (Moabite) and Baal (Canaanite) worship (2 Kings 3:27; Jer. 19:5), as well as rituals practiced before other regional gods. There is enough fluidity in names and details to suggest that these traditions were somewhat intertwined.

The practice of sacrifice to Molek is literally described as causing one’s son or daughter “to pass through the fire.” Such a thing was forbidden to Israel (Lev. 18:21; 20:2–5) and was called both a “detestable practice” and “detestable to the Lord” (Deut. 18:9–12). The shedding of innocent blood, a broader category of sin, was also prohibited (Deut. 19:10). Despite its gross offense, human sacrifice became a snare for Israel because it was so routine in Canaan, even though it was among the reasons given to them for driving the Canaanites out of the land (Ps. 106:34–39).

Indeed, like the Canaanites, the Israelites did sacrifice their children to idols. Solomon built high places for Chemosh and Molek (1 Kings 11:7). Ahaz sacrificed his son to Molek in Judah (2 Kings 16:3; 2 Chron. 28:1–4) according to the practices of the kings of Israel (2 Kings 17:17–18). So too did Manasseh (2 Kings 21:6; 2 Chron. 33:6), whose sins also more broadly included shedding innocent blood (2 Kings 21:6, 16; 24:4; 2 Chron. 33:6).

The Valley of Ben Hinnom in Jerusalem, located below the south wall of the city, extending from the base of Mount Zion eastward to the Kidron Valley, was a site for human sacrifices (Isa. 57:5). The specific place was called “Topheth,” either from a Hebrew word meaning “drum,” a reference to the priests of Molek banging instruments to drown out the screams of the child victims, or from an Aramaic loanword for “hearth,” communicating burning. In NT times, the same valley was known in Greek as Gehenna (geenna) and was used as a dump for burning refuse and a metaphor for hell.

After the fall of the northern kingdom, Josiah’s reforms included desecrating Topheth to stop the heinous idolatry (2 Kings 23:10). It did not last, however, as Jeremiah later prophesied on location that the Valley of Ben Hinnom would be renamed the “Valley of Slaughter” as a result of the despicable burning of children, and that the nation would be smashed for its great sins (Jer. 7:31–32; 19:1–14; 32:35). His prophecies were echoed by Ezekiel, whose passionate anger at Judah spilled over into shocking, attention-grabbing rhetoric as Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians (Ezek. 16:20–21; 20:26, 31; 23:37–39).

Elsewhere, the Bible alludes to human sacrifice before God. God commanded the offering of Isaac by Abraham as a test of Abraham’s devotion and obedience; and once Abraham passed the test, God stopped the sacrifice. A ram served as the substitute (Gen. 22:1–18). One possible reason for the matter-of-fact tone of the story is that Abraham lived in a context where such demands were not unexpected. What made Abraham’s God different was that he stopped the sacrifice.

A more difficult event is Jephthah’s sacrifice of his daughter in keeping with a rash vow that he made to God before battling the Ammonites (Judg. 11:30–40). There is no easy explanation for his gruesome vow fulfillment, which, this time, God did not miraculously stop. However, Jephthah’s actions are consistent with the book of Judges’ presentation of the Israelites as progressively descending into Canaan-like depravity because they had forgotten both God and his covenant.

Other instances that have been cited as examples of human sacrifice are more consistent with divine justice and retribution than with expiation (1 Sam. 15:17–21, 32–33; 2 Sam. 21:1–14).

The way the word “soul” is used in English does not align well with any single Hebrew or Greek word in the Bible. Rather, it reflects the accumulation of cultural and religious understanding of the past. It is widely accepted that the biblical view (both OT and NT) of humanity does not recognize sharp boundaries between body and soul (bipartite anthropology) or between body, soul, and spirit (tripartite). The human being is, according to biblical teaching, a psychosomatic unity. In fact, nepesh, the Hebrew word most commonly translated as “soul,” probably should more often be translated as “self.” In several occurrences in the OT, nepesh seems to mean “life” (Josh. 2:13; 1 Kings 19:4). Of course, given the Hellenistic background of the LXX and the NT, Greek psychē could mean something akin to “soul” as it is commonly used in English. But close examination shows that the NT use of the word is much closer to the OT conception than to its contemporary Hellenistic sense.

Nevertheless, our intuition leads us to make a conceptual distinction between the nonphysical abode of our “hearts and minds” and the physical presence of our being. At the most basic level, it relates to the question of death and its aftermath: when we die, can anything remain apart from the physicality of our existence? The Greek answer to this is belief in the immortality of the soul; the biblical answer is resurrection of the body. Since the Bible maintains the psychosomatic unity, purely nonphysical existence for the nonphysical part of humanity is not presented as a valid answer to the fundamental question of death. This is why the OT describes a dead person as “sleeping with his fathers.” The NT concept of soul is clearly based on the OT counterpart; nevertheless, there is also a clearer distinction between body and soul. An example is provided by Jesus when he says, “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul” (Matt. 10:28).

“Will” refers to a person’s wishes or desires and the power to act on those desires. In the Bible, human will is at times contrasted with God’s will or mercy (Rom. 9:16 ESV, NRSV; cf. John 1:13) or the power of the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1:21 NASB, NRSV). In his humanity, Jesus had his own will, but he chose to submit it to the Father’s will (Luke 22:42; John 6:38). See also Free Will; Will of God.

Origins, Composition, and Constitution

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

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

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

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

Form and Function

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

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

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

Humanity in Pauline Thought

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

In the OT, humility often refers to people of low social status, the disenfranchised, and those who suffer oppression and poverty (e.g., Prov. 22:22–23; Amos 2:7; Zech. 7:10). Such people often are referred to as the ’anawim (e.g., Ps. 9:12, 18; Isa. 32:7; 61:1; Amos 2:7; 8:4). The Hebrew word ’anah is frequently translated by the English words “oppress” and “afflict.” The word denotes the sexual humiliation of women (Gen. 31:50; Ezek. 22:10–11), military oppression (Judg. 16:5–6, 19), and oppression that comes with slavery (Gen. 15:13; Exod. 1:12; Deut. 26:6). As a social status, humility is synonymous with those marginalized by society.

Scripture sometimes associates those socially marginalized with the ethical dimension of humility, thus making the social status equivalent to a subjective spiritual quality (Pss. 22:26; 37:11–17; 146:7–9; Zeph. 3:11–13). Social humiliation, however, does not necessarily lead to humility as a virtue. In a number of instances in the OT, the two remain distinct. In its subjective quality, humility involves submission to one in authority, usually to God (Exod. 10:3; Deut. 8:2–3, 16; Ps. 119:67, 71, 75). On some occasions humility is related to the act of repentance before God (e.g., Zeph. 2:1–3). When paired with “fear of the Lord,” humility implies a person who lives in a posture of pious submission before God (Prov. 15:31–33; 22:4).

Such is the case with Moses, whom the writer of Numbers describes in the following way: “Now Moses was a very humble man, more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth” (Num. 12:3). Moses’ humility in this situation is displayed in his intimate relationship with, and by his submissive attitude toward, the sovereign God (12:4–9).

In the NT, Christians take Christ as their model of humility (Matt. 11:29; Phil. 2:6–11). The NT writers also call on Christians to humble themselves before God (James 4:10; 1 Pet. 5:5–6) as well as others, including their enemies (Rom. 12:14–21; Phil. 2:3).

In the OT, humility often refers to people of low social status, the disenfranchised, and those who suffer oppression and poverty (e.g., Prov. 22:22–23; Amos 2:7; Zech. 7:10). Such people often are referred to as the ’anawim (e.g., Ps. 9:12, 18; Isa. 32:7; 61:1; Amos 2:7; 8:4). The Hebrew word ’anah is frequently translated by the English words “oppress” and “afflict.” The word denotes the sexual humiliation of women (Gen. 31:50; Ezek. 22:10–11), military oppression (Judg. 16:5–6, 19), and oppression that comes with slavery (Gen. 15:13; Exod. 1:12; Deut. 26:6). As a social status, humility is synonymous with those marginalized by society.

Scripture sometimes associates those socially marginalized with the ethical dimension of humility, thus making the social status equivalent to a subjective spiritual quality (Pss. 22:26; 37:11–17; 146:7–9; Zeph. 3:11–13). Social humiliation, however, does not necessarily lead to humility as a virtue. In a number of instances in the OT, the two remain distinct. In its subjective quality, humility involves submission to one in authority, usually to God (Exod. 10:3; Deut. 8:2–3, 16; Ps. 119:67, 71, 75). On some occasions humility is related to the act of repentance before God (e.g., Zeph. 2:1–3). When paired with “fear of the Lord,” humility implies a person who lives in a posture of pious submission before God (Prov. 15:31–33; 22:4).

Such is the case with Moses, whom the writer of Numbers describes in the following way: “Now Moses was a very humble man, more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth” (Num. 12:3). Moses’ humility in this situation is displayed in his intimate relationship with, and by his submissive attitude toward, the sovereign God (12:4–9).

In the NT, Christians take Christ as their model of humility (Matt. 11:29; Phil. 2:6–11). The NT writers also call on Christians to humble themselves before God (James 4:10; 1 Pet. 5:5–6) as well as others, including their enemies (Rom. 12:14–21; Phil. 2:3).

A transliteration of a Greek word, kenōsis, meaning “emptying.” “Kenosis” has come to characterize a hymnlike unit in Paul’s letter to the Philippians (2:5–11), in which the apostle says Christ Jesus “emptied himself” (v. 7 NASB, NET, NRSV). Some have interpreted this to mean that Jesus surrendered certain or all of his divine attributes at the incarnation (cf. John 1:14). Others claim that these attributes continued in a “potential” reality. But it is probably best to look at the immediate context for the significance.

Paul presumes that the self-emptying of Christ is to some degree a communicable practice: we are to meditate on how to empty ourselves like Christ (Phil. 2:5). There were two extreme positions of status in the Roman world: Caesar, who was worshiped as a god, and the slave, who could be crucified at the whim of the master. Jesus, while being much greater than the former, willingly took on the status of the latter, humbling himself to the point of dying on a cross (Phil. 2:8). He put God’s interest—our salvation—before his own. Paul’s readers would have made an immediate comparison with the current emperor, Nero, who gladly embraced his own deification and lived only for the gratification of his own pleasure. But the desire to become like God goes back to the garden of Eden (Gen. 3:5). According to Jewish and Christian tradition, this vaulting ambition led to Satan’s fall. However, the Son did not become something else but rather emptied himself of the form or appearance of God. In other words, people did not know that Jesus was God by looking at him (cf. Isa. 53:2). But Peter, James, and John were allowed to see the glorified nature of the Son at the transfiguration (Matt. 17:1–9 pars.; see also John 1:14; 2 Pet. 1:16–21).

Paul’s hymnic reflection ends with the Father placing Jesus over all authority, at the right hand of his throne in heaven (Phil. 2:9–11; see also Eph. 1:20–21). Although people important by worldly standards ignored Jesus during his ministry, dismissing him as a Jewish peasant in a dusty corner of the Roman Empire, the apostle maintains that one day they will bow before Jesus’ glory. The kenosis is intended to exhort Christians to imitate the humility of Christ, putting the needs of others before themselves, so that they might also participate in his glory (see Eph. 2:1–20).

In the OT, humility often refers to people of low social status, the disenfranchised, and those who suffer oppression and poverty (e.g., Prov. 22:22–23; Amos 2:7; Zech. 7:10). Such people often are referred to as the ’anawim (e.g., Ps. 9:12, 18; Isa. 32:7; 61:1; Amos 2:7; 8:4). The Hebrew word ’anah is frequently translated by the English words “oppress” and “afflict.” The word denotes the sexual humiliation of women (Gen. 31:50; Ezek. 22:10–11), military oppression (Judg. 16:5–6, 19), and oppression that comes with slavery (Gen. 15:13; Exod. 1:12; Deut. 26:6). As a social status, humility is synonymous with those marginalized by society.

Scripture sometimes associates those socially marginalized with the ethical dimension of humility, thus making the social status equivalent to a subjective spiritual quality (Pss. 22:26; 37:11–17; 146:7–9; Zeph. 3:11–13). Social humiliation, however, does not necessarily lead to humility as a virtue. In a number of instances in the OT, the two remain distinct. In its subjective quality, humility involves submission to one in authority, usually to God (Exod. 10:3; Deut. 8:2–3, 16; Ps. 119:67, 71, 75). On some occasions humility is related to the act of repentance before God (e.g., Zeph. 2:1–3). When paired with “fear of the Lord,” humility implies a person who lives in a posture of pious submission before God (Prov. 15:31–33; 22:4).

Such is the case with Moses, whom the writer of Numbers describes in the following way: “Now Moses was a very humble man, more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth” (Num. 12:3). Moses’ humility in this situation is displayed in his intimate relationship with, and by his submissive attitude toward, the sovereign God (12:4–9).

In the NT, Christians take Christ as their model of humility (Matt. 11:29; Phil. 2:6–11). The NT writers also call on Christians to humble themselves before God (James 4:10; 1 Pet. 5:5–6) as well as others, including their enemies (Rom. 12:14–21; Phil. 2:3).

God’s interaction with humans all through history includes humor as a part of that story. Humor is a genuine expression of what it means to be human. It cannot be dismissed as simply trivial or mere entertainment. Humor pervades Scripture from beginning to end, but readers miss much of it due to a limited understanding of the language, context, and culture of the Bible.

Genesis records both Abraham and Sarah laughing at the unexpected news that Sarah at age ninety would give birth to a son (Gen. 17:15–17; 18:9–15; 21:1–7). Amos sarcastically tells northern Israel to come to the place of worship at Bethel and sin (Amos 4:4). The humor used to describe the lazy person in Prov. 26:13–16 cannot help but bring a chuckle. Jesus frequently uses hyperbole to communicate his message (Matt. 7:3–5). It is especially in reading Scripture out loud that one discovers its humor.

Humor is a Christian virtue when used with prudence. It helps put life and mistakes in perspective. Humor helps individuals endure tragedy. It reminds us of the fragile nature of life. When we laugh, we acknowledge our humanness and our imperfections. In a real sense, it is a preparation phase for faith. When we can laugh at ourselves, we are saying, “I am not God; I do not run the world.” In Christian life, humor puts humans in their place and celebrates the sovereignty and goodness of God.

A town near Hebron in the tribal allotment of Judah (Josh. 15:54).

The hunchback (Heb. gibben) was prohibited from offering burnt offerings as a priest (Lev. 21:20). The prohibition occurs within an extensive list of disfigurements that disqualified a person from sacrificing. Such descendants of Aaron could still eat the food granted to the priests (21:22).

One twentieth of a ton (one hundred pounds). This unit, in Greek talantiaios, appears in Rev. 16:21 (RSV, REB; NIV: “a hundred pounds”). Various other units occur in multiples of one hundred (shekels and, less frequently, talents, bekas, cors, and baths [Ezra 7:22]); these are round numbers rather than exact “hundredweights.”

Rarely is hunger mentioned in the Bible as the simple desire for the next regular meal (Mark 11:12; Acts 10:10; 1 Cor. 11:21, 34). Normally it is a hunger associated with physical weakness from the lack of food and often with long-term hardship such as famine (2 Kings 7:12; Ps. 107:5; Matt. 4:2; Mark 8:3; Luke 15:7; 2 Cor. 11:27). In the ancient world it took much harder work and a large portion of the workforce to produce enough food. And compared to the present, the whole enterprise was much more subject to fluctuating conditions of drought, blight, insects, and disease, in addition to the threat of warfare, whether from the raiding and destroying of crops (Judg. 6:3–4) or from siege (2 Kings 7:12). Hunger is not an inconvenient wait until the next full meal but rather a threat to health and life.

God cares for the hungry (Pss. 107:9; 146:7; Prov. 10:3; Isa. 49:10; Luke 1:53), and it is righteous to do likewise (Isa. 58:7, 10; Ezek. 18:7, 16; Matt. 25:35). Some provision was made for the hungry. While there was a small tax to provide food for certain disadvantaged parties (Levites, aliens, orphans, and widows [Deut. 14:27–29; 26:12–13]), other provision required that harvesters leave certain remains for others to glean (24:17–22). Hunger was not simply a matter of bad luck or victimhood, as it may result from laziness or lack of prudence (Prov. 19:15).

Hunting for food is a postdiluvian activity. In the original creation, humankind was allowed to eat only of plant life (Gen. 1:29); it was only with the re-creation of the earth that humans were explicitly permitted to eat animals: “Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything” (9:3). Therefore, it may be concluded that hunting as a means of survival had no significance for prediluvian humanity.

Nimrod was “a mighty hunter before the Lord; that is why it is said, ‘Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the Lord’ ” (Gen. 10:9). However, for many ancient interpreters, the proverbial saying was viewed with suspicion and was interpreted negatively as opposition against God (Philo, QG 2.82; L.A.B. 4:7; 6:13; Josephus, Ant. 1.113–14; Tg. Neof. 10:9; Frg. Tg. 10:9; Augustine, Civ. 16.4; Jerome, Qu. hebr. Gen. 10.18). Another memorable hunter is Esau, “a skillful hunter, a man of the open country” (Gen. 25:27). Before Esau could receive a blessing, his father requested that he go hunt game for him; however, the old and blind Isaac was tricked into blessing the wrong son (27:1–40).

In ancient times, hunting was not an activity limited to providing food or acquiring other resources such as materials for clothing. There is evidence of hunting as a royal sport. The Assyrian kings were famous hunters of lions, wild bulls, elephants, and other animals. By the seventh century BC, Assyrian kings hunted in special game reserves. For the Assyrians, the killing of wild beasts such as lions symbolized the duty of the king as a guardian of civilization. Royal hunting does not appear to have been a practice in Israel, although such a possibility may not be completely ruled out. The young David’s encounter with lion and bear is cited to some extent for self-exaltation purposes and even more so to portray him as a fearless shepherd worthy of shepherding Israel (1 Sam. 17:34–37).

Hunters used various methods to catch or kill their prey: weapons such as quiver, bow, spear, sling, and club (Gen. 27:3; cf. Isa. 7:24), pits and various snares and gins (Pss. 35:7; 91:3; 2 Sam. 23:20; Isa. 24:17; Jer. 48:43; Amos 3:5). Bird hunting was also a common practice, and snares often were used to make a catch (Pss. 91:3; 124:7; Prov. 1:17; 6:5; Eccles. 9:12; Amos 3:5).

Hunting for food is a postdiluvian activity. In the original creation, humankind was allowed to eat only of plant life (Gen. 1:29); it was only with the re-creation of the earth that humans were explicitly permitted to eat animals: “Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything” (9:3). Therefore, it may be concluded that hunting as a means of survival had no significance for prediluvian humanity.

Nimrod was “a mighty hunter before the Lord; that is why it is said, ‘Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the Lord’ ” (Gen. 10:9). However, for many ancient interpreters, the proverbial saying was viewed with suspicion and was interpreted negatively as opposition against God (Philo, QG 2.82; L.A.B. 4:7; 6:13; Josephus, Ant. 1.113–14; Tg. Neof. 10:9; Frg. Tg. 10:9; Augustine, Civ. 16.4; Jerome, Qu. hebr. Gen. 10.18). Another memorable hunter is Esau, “a skillful hunter, a man of the open country” (Gen. 25:27). Before Esau could receive a blessing, his father requested that he go hunt game for him; however, the old and blind Isaac was tricked into blessing the wrong son (27:1–40).

In ancient times, hunting was not an activity limited to providing food or acquiring other resources such as materials for clothing. There is evidence of hunting as a royal sport. The Assyrian kings were famous hunters of lions, wild bulls, elephants, and other animals. By the seventh century BC, Assyrian kings hunted in special game reserves. For the Assyrians, the killing of wild beasts such as lions symbolized the duty of the king as a guardian of civilization. Royal hunting does not appear to have been a practice in Israel, although such a possibility may not be completely ruled out. The young David’s encounter with lion and bear is cited to some extent for self-exaltation purposes and even more so to portray him as a fearless shepherd worthy of shepherding Israel (1 Sam. 17:34–37).

Hunters used various methods to catch or kill their prey: weapons such as quiver, bow, spear, sling, and club (Gen. 27:3; cf. Isa. 7:24), pits and various snares and gins (Pss. 35:7; 91:3; 2 Sam. 23:20; Isa. 24:17; Jer. 48:43; Amos 3:5). Bird hunting was also a common practice, and snares often were used to make a catch (Pss. 91:3; 124:7; Prov. 1:17; 6:5; Eccles. 9:12; Amos 3:5).

The ancestor of a clan, the Huphamites, of the tribe of Benjamin, who are counted in the second census account in the wilderness (Num. 26:39). He may be the same person as Huppim, one of the sons of Benjamin (Gen. 46:21).

The ancestor of a clan, the Huphamites, of the tribe of Benjamin, who are counted in the second census account in the wilderness (Num. 26:39). He may be the same person as Huppim, one of the sons of Benjamin (Gen. 46:21).

One of the temple officials appointed to minister at the sanctuary from the family line of Eleazer the priest (1 Chron. 24:13).

One of Benjamin’s ten sons (Gen. 46:21). He may also be called “Hupham” in Num. 26:39.

(1) An important leader in the time of the exodus. While Joshua was fighting against the Amalekites in Rephidim, Aaron and Hur helped Moses keep his hands raised for the Israelites’ victory (Exod. 17:10–13). While Moses was away at Mount Sinai, he put Aaron and Hur in charge (24:14). (2) A Judahite and the grandfather of Bezalel, who worked on the tabernacle with his divinely gifted craftsmanship (Exod. 31:2; 35:30; 38:22; 2 Chron. 1:5). He was a descendant of Caleb, whose wife was Ephrath, and he was the grandfather of Bethlehem (1 Chron. 2:19–20; 2:50; 4:1, 4). Josephus and Jewish tradition made him the husband of Miriam and identified him with the Hur of Exod. 17:10–13; 24:14. (3) One of the five kings of Midian killed along with Balaam as the Israelites applied “the Lord’s vengeance” on the Midianites for having seduced them in the “Peor incident” (Num. 31:3, 16; cf. 25:16–18). These kings are recorded as the princes who allied with Sihon, an Amorite king (Josh. 13:21). (4) According to 1 Kings 4:8 (KJV), Hur was the father of one of Solomon’s twelve district governors responsible for supplying provisions from the hill country of Ephraim for the king and the royal household. Since the Hebrew word ben can be translated “son of,” the proper name “Ben-Hur” (NIV) can be used to replace “son of Hur.” (5) The father of Rephaiah, who helped repair the wall of Jerusalem under the direction of Nehemiah and was ruler of a half-district of Jerusalem (Neh. 3:9). If in Neh. 3:9 Hur is understood to be the ancestor rather than the father of Rephaiah, then he could be the same person as in Exod. 31:2; 35:30; 38:22; 2 Chron. 1:5.

One of David’s thirty mighty men, an Ephraimite from the brooks of Gaash (2 Sam. 23:30). In 1 Chron. 11:32 he is called “Hurai.”

(1) A member of the tribe of Benjamin. He was a grandson of Benjamin son of Bilhan (1 Chron. 8:5). (2) The king of Tyre, more often called “Hiram,” who made trade agreements with both David and Solomon for building materials (2 Chron. 2:3–16). (3) A Phoenician craftsman, son of an Israelite woman, sent by King Hiram of Tyre to do bronze work in Solomon’s construction (2 Chron. 4:11–16). He is also called “Hiram” (1 Kings 7:13 NRSV) and “Huram-Abi” (2 Chron. 2:13; 4:16). See also Hiram.

(1) A member of the tribe of Benjamin. He was a grandson of Benjamin son of Bilhan (1 Chron. 8:5). (2) The king of Tyre, more often called “Hiram,” who made trade agreements with both David and Solomon for building materials (2 Chron. 2:3–16). (3) A Phoenician craftsman, son of an Israelite woman, sent by King Hiram of Tyre to do bronze work in Solomon’s construction (2 Chron. 4:11–16). He is also called “Hiram” (1 Kings 7:13 NRSV) and “Huram-Abi” (2 Chron. 2:13; 4:16). See also Hiram.

One of the Gadites in the genealogy in 1 Chron. 5:14. Huri is not mentioned in other lists of Gadites, and apparently he appeared in genealogical records in the days of Jotham and Jeroboam (5:17).

The inhabitants of the Mount Seir region. The etymology of their name has often been related to the Hebrew term for “cave dweller,” but this is incorrect. “Horites” may be the biblical name for the Hurrians. The Hurrians were Semites. They were one of the people groups defeated by Kedorlaomer in the time of Abraham (Gen. 14:6). Egyptian sources and name etymology indicate that the Hurrians were in the area of Palestine by the fourteenth century BC. As indicated by the LXX, and no doubt due to changes in words moving from one language to another, the biblical designation “Hivite” most likely refers to the same people group (Gen. 34:2; 36:2).

Esau and his descendants, the Edomites, conquered the Mount Seir region and forcibly removed the majority of the Horite people in a manner that paralleled the conquest of the Canaanites by the Israelites (Deut. 2:12, 22). However, some early intermarriage apparently took place between Esau and the Horites (Gen. 36:2). Apparently, some of the Horites (Hivites) were living in the area of Canaan (Exod. 3:8, 17; 13:5; 33:2; 34:11; Deut. 20:17; Josh. 3:10; 9:1; 11:3; 12:8; 24:11). Genesis 10:17 lists the Horites (Hivites) as descendants of Canaan. Shechem, who raped Jacob and Leah’s daughter Dinah, is said to be a Horite (Hivite; Gen. 34:2).

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

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

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

Patriarchal Structures

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

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

Aristotelian Household Codes

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

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

Marriage and Divorce

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

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

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

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

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

Children, Parenting, and Education

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

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

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

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

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

Family as an Analogy

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

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

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

The KJV uses “husbandman” to translate Hebrew and Greek words rendered in other versions as “farmer,” “vinedresser,” or “tenant.” In an agricultural society, where crops are a stable source of income, husbandry is a common occupation. It also appears as a metaphor in Scripture. The religious leaders are identified as God-appointed tenants of his vineyard who turn against its owner, killing his son (Matt. 21:33–39). Jesus identifies himself as the vine, believers as its branches, and the Father as the vinedresser (John 15:1–7).

(1) The son of Ezer, and one of the descendants of Hur (1 Chron. 4:4). (2) An Israelite town, identified with modern Husan, west of Bethlehem. Two persons are specifically mentioned as Hushathites: Sibbekai (2 Sam. 21:18; 1 Chron. 11:29; 20:4; 27:11) and Mebunnai (2 Sam. 23:27). Sibbekai struck down a champion of the Philistines (2 Sam. 21:18; 1 Chron. 20:4), and it is likely that both names refer to the same person because both are registered among David’s mighty men and occur in parallel passages.

A friend of David from the Arkite clan, located near the northern border of Benjamin near Ataroth (see Josh. 16:2). Hushai met David to join him as he fled from Jerusalem because of Absalom’s rebellion. Having just prayed that the advice of Absalom’s highly regarded counselor Ahithophel be thwarted, David persuaded Hushai to stay behind as a spy. He assigned Hushai to pretend loyalty to Absalom but to report to him through the priests Zadok and Abiathar (2 Sam. 15:30–37). Hushai successfully feigned loyalty to Absalom (16:16–18) and gained his trust. Ahithophel advised hot pursuit of David, anticipating that he and the people with him would be weary. But Absalom also consulted Hushai. Painting a picture of David as a trapped, fierce warrior, he persuaded Absalom to take the time to gather an overwhelming force, and then he reported this to the priests, who passed the word to David (17:7–16). Hushai’s action saved David’s life.

The successor to Jobab as king of Edom (Gen. 36:34; 1 Chron. 1:45–46) in the period before the Israelite monarchy (Gen. 36:31). Husham was from the land of the Temanites, and so apparently he was a non-Edomite.

(1) The son of Ezer, and one of the descendants of Hur (1 Chron. 4:4). (2) An Israelite town, identified with modern Husan, west of Bethlehem. Two persons are specifically mentioned as Hushathites: Sibbekai (2 Sam. 21:18; 1 Chron. 11:29; 20:4; 27:11) and Mebunnai (2 Sam. 23:27). Sibbekai struck down a champion of the Philistines (2 Sam. 21:18; 1 Chron. 20:4), and it is likely that both names refer to the same person because both are registered among David’s mighty men and occur in parallel passages.

(1) A variant of “Shuham,” the only descendant of Dan (Num. 26:42) listed in Gen. 46:23. Since the list in Numbers mentions a tribe, the Shuhamites, it may be that the form in Numbers is original and that “Hushim” in Gen. 46:23 is the result of metathesis, with the scribe inverting the order of the letters het and shin, possibly because of familiarity with the tribe in 1 Chron. 7:12. (2) Descendants of Aher from Benjamin (1 Chron. 7:12 [NIV: “Hushites the descendants of Aher”; NRSV: “Hushim the son of Aher”]). (3) The divorcée of Shaharaim from Benjamin (1 Chron. 8:8), who bore to him Abitub and Elpaal (1 Chron. 8:11).

(1) A variant of “Shuham,” the only descendant of Dan (Num. 26:42) listed in Gen. 46:23. Since the list in Numbers mentions a tribe, the Shuhamites, it may be that the form in Numbers is original and that “Hushim” in Gen. 46:23 is the result of metathesis, with the scribe inverting the order of the letters het and shin, possibly because of familiarity with the tribe in 1 Chron. 7:12. (2) Descendants of Aher from Benjamin (1 Chron. 7:12 [NIV: “Hushites the descendants of Aher”; NRSV: “Hushim the son of Aher”]). (3) The divorcée of Shaharaim from Benjamin (1 Chron. 8:8), who bore to him Abitub and Elpaal (1 Chron. 8:11).

The outer membranous covering of some fruits, nuts, and grain. The KJV uses the word three times (Num. 6:4; 2 Kings 4:42; Luke 15:16), but most modern versions replace it with other renderings, including “skin [of grapes]” (Num. 6:4), “heads [of grain]” (2 Kings 4:42), and “[carob] pods” (Luke 15:16). There is debate concerning the meaning of the term tsiqlon in 2 Kings 4:42, which occurs only here in the OT. Some see it referring to the heads/ears of grain that the man is bringing to Elisha (NIV, NET, KJV), while others see it as the sack in which he carries the grain (RSV, NRSV, ESV).

Some English versions use “hut” as a translation of melunah, one of two Hebrew words for a shelter, both used in Isa. 1:8 (see also 24:20). The other word, sukkah, occurring also in Job 27:18, is the one used for the “booths” of the Festival of Booths (Lev. 23:42–43).

(1) The homeland of Job (Job 1:1), its location is uncertain. According to Lam. 4:21, the land of Uz is equivalent to Edomite territory (probably also Jer. 25:20). The geographical designations of Job’s companions (particularly Eliphaz the Temanite) suggest a setting in Transjordan rather than northern Mesopotamia (Aram). (2) The oldest of the four sons of Aram and a grandson of Shem, he appears in the genealogy of the Arameans (Gen. 10:23; 1 Chron. 1:17). (3) The son of Abraham’s brother Nahor and Milkah, also associated with Arameans (Gen. 22:21). (4) The first of the two sons of Dishan son of Seir the Horite, among the people of Seir in Edom (Gen. 36:28; 1 Chron. 1:42).

The interpretation of “Huzzab” (Heb. hutsab) in Nah. 2:7 is one of the most difficult problems in that book, and translators and commentators have suggested many solutions. Many older translations read “Huzzab shall be led away captive” (KJV), following the traditional text and taking the word as a proper name referring to Nineveh’s queen (a person otherwise unknown). Some newer versions understand the word as a verb, “it is decreed” (NIV, NRSV [NASB: “it is fixed”]), though this interpretation involves linguistic speculation and the conjecture of the phrase “the city” to complete the verse. Context suggests that the word refers to a female cult statue stripped by the conquerors of Nineveh.

A gem that has a reddish, orange, or brown tint. It is listed as one of the twelve gems mounted on the high priest’s breastpiece, although its exact identification is uncertain (Exod. 28:19; 39:12). One of the twelve foundations of the “Holy City, Jerusalem,” described in Rev. 21:20 is decorated with jacinth.

A hunter-scavenger doglike animal with front legs longer than back legs. The species found in Israel is the striped hyena, which has striped legs and underbelly, a speckled face, and a ridge of hair running along its spine. They have eerie calls and inhabit holes and ruined buildings, feeding on carrion, bones, and garbage, as well as hunting live prey. The prophets mention them in connection with God’s devastating judgment on Babylon and Edom (Isa. 13:22; 34:14; Jer. 50:39). Hyenas often are associated with jackals, but which Hebrew words refer to which animal is uncertain. Two of the words mean “scream” and “wail,” so the collective reference may simply be to “wailing and screaming animals.” In Jer. 12:9 the phrase ’ayit tsabua’ (lit., “speckled screamer”) uses one of these words, but it may refer to a bird of prey. In 1 Sam. 13:18 the Valley of Zeboim is literally the “Valley of Hyenas.”

The Semitic rulers of Lower Egypt during the second intermediate period (c. 1700–1550 BC). The Egyptians designated them “Hyksos,” which means “foreign rulers,” and viewed them as Asiatic in origin. Since Hyksos names were primarily Semitic and their material culture was very similar to Middle Bronze Age II remains in Canaan, they could be identified as West Semitic in general and southern Levantine or Canaanite in particular.

How the Hyksos came to enter and control Lower Egypt is still debated. They did not conquer in a single campaign under a single king, but neither was their infiltration entirely peaceful. Instead, in a complex process over a long period of time, Semitic groups immigrated into Egypt. As their numbers increased, so did the conflicts with the native Egyptians. Eventually, the Hyksos caused the weak Thirteenth Dynasty to collapse, and they ruled Lower Egypt in its place. A unified Egypt broke into two rival kingdoms, with a native Egyptian dynasty centered in Thebes and a Hyksos dynasty centered in Avaris, which later was known in the Bible as Zoan (Ps. 78:43) and now is known as Tell ed Dab’a. Avaris was a huge city, covering one square mile.

The Hyksos represent the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Dynasties. The rival Seventeenth Dynasty in Thebes sought to drive the Hyksos out of Egypt. Pharaoh Seqenenre lost his life in battle with the Hyksos, but Kamose followed up the attacks and won some victories. Ahmose, the founder of the powerful Eighteenth Dynasty, successfully besieged Avaris and carried the war into Canaan, destroying several of its cities in 1550 BC. This marked the end of the Second Intermediate Period and ushered in the New Kingdom. It also marked the beginning of the Late Bronze Age in Canaan. Hatred toward the Hyksos lingered, as Thutmose III claimed that his campaigns into Canaan were retribution against the Hyksos. Egypt had experienced weak and even chaotic periods, but it had not faced foreign invasion before. This dealt a huge blow to the Egyptian psyche and may explain some of the Egyptian actions and fears depicted in Exod. 1.

Even though the Hyksos are not mentioned in the OT, their presence in Egypt may have influenced biblical events. Enough evidence has not been found to prove direct Hyksos involvement in biblical events, but some suggest that Joseph’s rise to power is best explained if a Hyksos (Semitic) pharaoh ruled Egypt at that time. The rise of a pharaoh “to whom Joseph meant nothing” (Exod. 1:8) may be a reference to the rise of the Eighteenth Dynasty after its expulsion of the Hyksos. The Israelites had been settled and then enslaved in the areas of the Nile Delta once controlled by the Hyksos. The fear of the Israelites becoming too numerous and fighting against Egypt may have been based on the precedent set by the Hyksos (cf. 1:9–10).

A leader in the church of Ephesus who opposed Paul and his teaching. He was among those who rejected sound doctrine with “seared” consciences (1 Tim. 4:2) and in doing so “suffered shipwreck with regard to the faith” (1:19). Paul responded by excommunicating (“handed over to Satan”) Hymenaeus and Alexander so that they “be taught not to blaspheme” (1:20). But Hymenaeus continued to destroy others’ faith by teaching falsely that the resurrection had already occurred (2 Tim. 2:17–18). Paul charged Timothy to avoid such godless teaching and to gently instruct his opponents (2 Tim. 2:16, 25).

A song of worship and praise to God. The NIV only uses the word once in the OT, in Ps. 40:3, referring to a “hymn of praise” to God. The Hebrew word behind this phrase is tehillah, which is common in the OT and is elsewhere translated simply as “praise,” especially in the psalms. Psalms were part of Israel’s worship, and so such “hymns of praise” to God are more common than the English suggests.

The content of these hymns is not laid out for modern readers, but it involves things such as thanksgiving, gratitude, or generally giving God due recognition for who he is (e.g., Ps. 66:2) and what he has done (e.g., 106:2, 12).

In the NT, the word occurs only a handful of times in the NIV, and there is very little indication what these hymns were about. Here too, generally we can say that a hymn is a particular type of song of praise to God.

In Matt. 26:30; Mark 14:26, Jesus and the disciples sang a hymn at the conclusion of the Lord’s Supper. Since this meal was patterned after the Passover, it is likely that one or more of the Hallel psalms (Pss. 111–118) were sung. (“Hallel” means “praise” in Hebrew and is related to tehillah). The Greek word behind this use in the Gospels, hymneō, is the origin of the English word “hymn.” In Acts 16:25 Paul and Silas sang hymns at midnight while in prison, although we are told nothing about their content.

In 1 Cor. 14:26 Paul is instructing his readers about orderly worship. According to the NIV, one of the elements of worship includes hymns, although the Greek word here is psalmos (the word used to refer to the book of Psalms in Luke 20:42; 24:44; Acts 1:20; 13:30), which the KJV renders there as “psalm.” There is certainly significant overlap between hymns and psalms, since both involve praising God, but evidently there is some distinction too, as can be seen in Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16, where Paul makes a distinction between “psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit.” Perhaps these terms do not reflect clearly marked categories in Paul’s mind. In Eph. 5:19 all three are directed to God “from [the] heart,” and in Col. 3:16 they are sung with “gratitude,” both of which reflect the use of psalms in the OT.

Biblical scholars also refer to other portions of the Bible as “hymns,” even though the word is not used. The Song of Moses (Exod. 15:1–18) and the Song of Hannah (1 Sam. 2:1–10) are sometimes called “hymns” simply as a convenient designation (although Hannah’s is more a prayer). The same goes for Mary’s song, the Magnificat (Luke 1:46–55), which clearly is modeled after Hannah’s song, and Zechariah’s song, the Benedictus (Luke 1:68–79), which reflects OT prophetic poems. Elsewhere biblical scholars detect the possibility of fragments of preexisting “hymns” that were incorporated into the NT (e.g., Phil. 2:6–11). This suggests to some that there was some hymn-writing activity in the early church.

The practice of claiming standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform. Hypocrisy is attributed to those whose actions and words differ from the intention of their heart (Matt. 22:18; 23:28). It is a form of lying (1 Tim. 4:2; 1 Pet. 2:1) and can become a form of self-delusion (Matt. 7:5; 23:16–26; Luke 12:56; 13:15).

The OT expresses the sense with phrases like “double heart” and “flattering lips” (Ps. 12:2 KJV). Jeremiah describes those who have God “always on their lips but far from their hearts” (Jer. 12:2).

The NT word hypokrinomai has its origin in the theater, referring to a play actor (Luke 20:20). All parts, including female characters, were played by a few men, who signaled character transitions by switching masks. Jesus calls his opponents “hypocrites” (Matt. 6:2, 5, 16; 15:7; 23:13, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29; Mark 7:6; Luke 12:56; 13:15; cf. Ps. 26:4). Archaeologists have found a theater in Sepphoris, a large and partly Hellenized city within five miles of Jesus’ hometown, Nazareth, but the theater may have been built after his ministry. Even if Jesus did not personally attend the local theater, the imagery would have long been a part of his social world.

Jesus criticizes the scribes and Pharisees because “they do not practice what they preach” (Matt. 23:3; cf. Mark 7:6). What they practice is for display (Matt. 6:2, 5, 16). Jesus describes the attempt of his opponents to catch him with crafty questions as hypocrisy (Matt. 22:18; Mark 12:15). Jesus is not necessarily calling all Pharisees hypocrites, and certainly not all Jews, but only those who are impeding his ministry. Paul, who was raised a Pharisee (Acts 23:6; Phil. 3:5), viewed himself not as a hypocrite but as ignorant (1 Tim. 1:13). Jesus criticizes Nicodemus not for hypocrisy but for ignorance about the deeper meaning of Scripture (John 3:1–15). The rabbis, who are descendants of the Pharisees, relate a tradition of concern about hypocrisy within the ranks of the group (e.g., b. Sotah 22b).

Paul accuses Peter of hypocrisy because he was willing to eat with non-Jewish Christians in Antioch but then pulled away when a more culturally conservative group arrived from James in Jerusalem (Gal. 2:13). Peter knew the truth but, from Paul’s view, did not act consistently. In this case, the inconsistency would have created a precedent that Paul could not tolerate. The opposite of hypocrisy is love from a transparently pure heart and a willingness to admit fault (Rom. 12:9; 2 Cor. 6:6; 1 Pet. 1:22).

A small animal (Hyrax syriaca) designated as unclean for the Israelites (Lev. 11:5; Deut. 14:7). The hyrax in some ways resembles and is about the size of a rabbit, hence it is also referred to as a rock badger or coney (“coney” is an archaic word for “rabbit”). Although the hyrax does not actually chew the cud, its constant chewing may have led to its identification as a cud-chewing animal. The hyrax is extremely agile in rocky areas and makes its home there (Ps. 104:18; Prov. 30:26).

The Hebrew word translated “hyssop,” ’ezob, occurs ten times in the OT, five of them in Lev. 14. Although there is some question regarding the identity of the plant, it clearly is small, in contrast to the cedar of Lebanon (1 Kings 4:33). When branches of hyssop are bundled together, the leaf structure holds liquids. Hyssop was used to sprinkle the blood of the Passover lamb on the lintels and doorposts of the Israelite houses (Exod. 12:22). Its use in conjunction both with sprinkling blood on persons and houses affected by infectious skin diseases and mildew (Lev. 14) and with burning the red heifer (Num. 19:1–6) suggests that its aromatic properties were also significant in countering the stench of blood and burning flesh. Hyssop was used to sprinkle the purification water from the heifer on objects and individuals that had come in contact with a corpse (Num. 19:18). The impact of these ceremonial purification rites gave hyssop symbolic significance; it represented cleansing from sin (Ps. 51:7) and humility.

The English word “hyssop” comes from the Greek word hyssōpos, itself of Semitic origin. At the crucifixion, in response to Jesus’ cry “I thirst,” a sponge soaked in vinegar was lifted on branch of hyssop to Jesus (John 19:29). If the plant is of the small herb variety, lifting the sponge on a branch of hyssop seems unlikely. Some suggest that the Greek really is a similar word that means “javelin” (hyssos). Others maintain that John, who is the only evangelist to mention the hyssop, is more interested in the symbolic aspects of hyssop and the connection to Passover with the death of Jesus, the Passover Lamb. The combination of purity and humility may be why John included it in the crucifixion scene. The author of Hebrews enhanced the description of the covenant ratification ceremony (Exod. 24:1–8) by including the ritual elements of scarlet wool and hyssop from Num. 19 and Lev. 14 along with water and the blood of sacrificial animals (Heb. 9:19).