ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
I Am

The divine name, YHWH, revealed to Moses (Exod. 3:14) is related to hayah, the Hebrew verb for “to be.” The LXX renders this name with the phrase “I am” (egō eimi), which later OT writings employ as a title for God (Isa. 43:25; 51:12; 52:6).

A significant feature in the Fourth Gospel is John’s record of seven predicated “I am” statements within Jesus’ teaching: “I am the bread of life” (6:35); “I am the light of the world” (8:12); “I am the gate for the sheep” (10:7); “I am the good shepherd” (10:11); “I am the resurrection and the life” (11:25); “I am the way and the truth and the life” (14:6); and “I am the true vine” (15:1). With each metaphor Jesus expresses a contrast between himself and another. For instance, Jesus’ claim to be the bread of life differentiates him from the manna that appeared in the wilderness (6:49), while his identification as the good shepherd stands in contrast to the hired hand who abandons the sheep in a time of trouble (10:12–13). In these instances “I am” is likely an intentional choice meant to echo the divine name and reveal Jesus’ relationship of unity with God the Father.

The meaning of additional unpredicated but emphatic “I am” declarations in Greek by Jesus is debated (Mark 6:50; 14:62; Luke 24:39; John 6:20; 8:24, 28, 58; 13:19; 18:5). In response to Jesus’ declaration of “I am,” the high priest accuses him of blasphemy (Mark 14:64), the Jews desire to stone him (John 8:59), and the officials who come to arrest him “[draw] back and [fall] to the ground” (John 18:6). These reactions suggest that at least some who heard Jesus utter these words interpreted them as his claim to equality with God (cf. John 5:18).

Ibex

A species of wild goat with large, curved horns. It is included in the list of clean animals (Deut. 14:5). The adult stands about thirty-four inches at the shoulder, with the horns reaching up to fifty inches for the buck. It finds its home among the rocks on the mountain slopes. Its flexible hooves allow it to scale nearly vertical rock faces, a characteristic found in its Hebrew name, dishon, which means “climber.” In ancient times they were widespread, living from the Syrian mountains down to the Sudan.

Ibhar

A son of David born to an unnamed wife during the time he reigned from Jerusalem (2 Sam. 5:15; 1 Chron. 3:6; 14:5).

Ibleam

Ibleam is identified with Khirbet Bel‘ameh, located one mile south of Jenin (biblical Beth Haggan) and ten miles southeast of Megiddo. The site guarded one of the access routes through the Jezreel Valley. In the allotments of the book of Joshua, the half-tribe of Manasseh was given “Beth Shan, Ibleam and the people of Dor, Endor, Taanach and Megiddo, together with their surrounding settlements” (Josh. 17:11; cf. Judg. 1:27). However, “the Manassites were not able to occupy these towns, for the Canaanites were determined to live in that region” (Josh. 17:12; cf. Judg. 1:27). Ibleam may also have been allotted to the Levites (if “Bileam” is in fact a variant for “Ibleam” in 1 Chron. 6:70; cf. Josh. 21:25). The site does not appear to come under the control of Israel until the time of King David. In the ninth century BC the Judahite king Ahaziah was pursued and shot by Jehu “on the way up to Gur near Ibleam, but he escaped to Megiddo and died there” (2 Kings 9:27). Finally, it is possible that the eighth-century Israelite king Zechariah may have been assassinated at Ibleam (see 2 Kings 15:10 ESV, RSV).

Ibneiah

The son of Jeroham of the tribe of Benjamin, he was among the first to return to Judah after the Babylonian exile (1 Chron. 9:8).

Ibnijah

Great-grandfather of Meshullam of the tribe of Benjamin, who was among the first to return to Judah after the Babylonian exile (1 Chron. 9:8).

Ibri

A Levitical leader descended from Merari who served during the time of David (1 Chron. 24:27).

Ibzan

A “minor judge” from Bethlehem (Josh. 19:15) who had thirty sons and thirty daughters (Judg. 12:8–10; cf. 10:3–4; 12:13–14). His children married people from outside his clan. He led Israel for seven years and was buried in Bethlehem.

Ice

In the subtropical climate of Israel, ice inspired both fear and wonder. When God hurls bits of ice from heaven (i.e., hail), the psalmist asks, “Who can withstand his icy blast?” (Ps. 147:17), and the Hebrew term qerakh, also translated as “cold” or “frost,” is associated with the discomfort of nighttime exposure (Gen. 31:40; Jer. 36:30). However, the term is also used to describe the sparkling beauty of the expanse above the living creatures in Ezekiel’s vision of God (Ezek. 1:22). Like other meteorological occurrences, such as rain (Jer. 14:22) and wind (Amos 4:13), ice is considered the work of God (Job 37:10; 38:29).

Ichabod

The son of Phinehas and the grandson of Eli the high priest. Phinehas died battling the Philistines, who also captured the ark of the covenant, the news of which caused the death of Eli. Upon hearing of the deaths of her father-in-law and husband and that the ark had been captured, Phinehas’s wife went into labor and gave birth to a boy. Saying, “The glory has departed from Israel, for the ark of God has been captured,” she named the boy “Ichabod,” which means “where is the glory?” or “no glory” (1 Sam. 4:19–22).

Iconium

An important agricultural and trade route city (modern Konya) in the Roman province of Galatia. Although Iconium was a capital for the Lycaonian district (cf. Acts 14:6, 11), inscriptions indicate that the Phrygian language was also in use there. On his first missionary campaign, Paul experienced both evangelistic success and opposition at Iconium, forcing him on to Lystra (13:51–14:6). When Jews from Iconium and Pisidian Antioch rallied the Jews of Lystra against him (Acts 14:19; cf. 2 Tim. 3:11), Paul was attacked and stoned by an angry mob. He then went to Derbe, but he returned through Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch, encouraging the believers (Acts 14:21–23). Paul visited Iconium again on his second missionary campaign (15:36–16:6) and perhaps on the third as well (18:23).

Idalah

One of twelve towns allotted to the tribe of Zebulun under Joshua (Josh. 19:15). Some have identified Idalah with Khirbet el-Chawarah, which is in the vicinity of Nazareth. The town of Bethlehem, mentioned immediately after Idalah, is not the Bethlehem where Jesus was born.

Idbash

A descendant of Judah, Idbash was one of three sons of Etam, according to the LXX reading of 1 Chron. 4:3, which most modern versions follow. The KJV, following the Hebrew text here, reads, “And these were of the father of Etam.”

Iddo

The name translated as “Iddo” is spelled in several different ways in Hebrew. (1) A Manassite official in David’s administration (1 Chron. 27:21). With a significant change in spelling, this may be the same person listed as the father of an official in the administration of Solomon (1 Kings 4:14). (2) A descendant of Levi through Gershon (1 Chron. 6:21; called Adaiah in 1 Chron. 6:41). (3) A priest or group of priests who returned to the land along with Zerubbabel (Neh. 12:4, 16). (4) A priestly leader living in exile at Kasiphia with whom Ezra had correspondence (Ezra 8:17). (5) The grandfather or ancestor of the prophet Zechariah (Ezra 5:1; 6:14; Zech. 1:1, 7). (6) The author of a chronicle or book of prophecies known to the author of Chronicles (2 Chron. 9:29 [as read in the Masoretic tradition]; 12:15; 13:22). This Iddo is described as a “seer” or a “prophet” and is cited in connection with the late tenth-century kings Solomon, Jeroboam, Rehoboam, and Abijah (Abijam). His literary work is described as “visions,” “words,” and as a “midrash” (a study or commentary). He may have collaborated with Shemaiah (2 Chron. 12:15).

Idle

A description for a manner of living deemed inappropriate for the people of God. Appearing six times in the OT and six times in the NT, this adjective is often used in connection with speech. In Isa. 58:13 “idle words” involve living to please oneself rather than God. In the book of Job, Zophar accuses Job of “idle talk” when he considers Job to be mocking God (Job 11:3). In Deut. 32:47 Moses assures Israel that the words he has declared to them are not idle words but are in fact their life. Paul denounces idle speech, including gossip (1 Tim. 5:13) and spiritual testimonies that glorify the speaker rather than God (Col. 2:18). The word is also used in Scripture to denounce laziness and failing to work to provide for one’s physical needs (Prov. 31:27; Eccles. 10:18; 11:6; 1 Thess. 5:14; 2 Thess. 3:6–13).

Idol

An image or likeness of a deity, whether carved from wood, molded from metal, or even formed in one’s mind. Although idols are not strictly equivalent to the gods they represent—even pagans recognized that idols are only the physical medium through which a spirit reveals itself—the Bible does not distinguish between worshiping idols, worshiping other gods, or worshiping Yahweh through images.

In contrast to other ancient religions, the Bible rejects worship of all images as incompatible with worship of God. This includes images of Yahweh, since he is transcendent and cannot be represented by anything in creation. As Moses reminded Israel, they saw no form at Sinai but only heard God’s voice (Deut. 4:12). No form can adequately represent Yahweh, as he is incomparable. The Bible similarly forbids worshiping images of other deities because it elevates them to the status reserved for God alone. Thus, the second commandment prohibits making and worshiping idols in the image of anything found in heaven, on earth, or in the water (Exod. 20:4–5).

Idolatry is regularly likened to spiritual adultery or prostitution because it marks a breakdown of God’s covenant relationship with his people (Deut. 31:16; Ps. 106:36–39; Hos. 4:12–19). This corresponds to the fact that idol worship often included cultic prostitution and fertility rites. Prophets and psalmists alike ridiculed idols as things fashioned by human hands that were unable to see, hear, or otherwise help those who made them. Rather, these “gods” depended on humans for transportation and protection (Ps. 115:4–8; Isa. 40:19–20; 44:9–20). Idolaters were warned that they would become as worthless as the things they worshiped. While declaring that idols amount to nothing, both Testaments nevertheless consider them spiritually dangerous. This is because idols lead people away from properly worshiping Yahweh and expose them to demonic influences.

Despite its warnings against idolatry, the Bible records that Israel regularly failed to keep itself pure. Right after God’s supreme revelation at Sinai, Aaron led the nation in making and worshiping a golden calf (Exod. 32). The book of Judges shows how society had become degraded to the point that a man, Micah, and a tribe, Dan, engaged in idol worship (Judg. 17–18). When the monarchy was divided after Solomon’s rule, Jeroboam revived calf worship to preserve the loyalty of his people (1 Kings 12:25–33). Both historical and prophetic books cite idolatry as a major reason for the exile.

By NT times, idol worship was no longer a problem for Jews, but it remained an important issue for the growing church because many believers came from idolatrous backgrounds. Thus, the apostles included idolatry in lists of sins to be judged, warned their readers to flee from it, and addressed eating food sacrificed to idols. Indicating that idolatry went beyond worship of images, they linked it with the love of money (Matt. 6:24) and greed (Col. 3:5). The NT authors believed that their readers could turn from idols to worship the true and living God, praised them for doing so, and looked to the time when all idol worship would cease.

Idol of Jealousy

During the Babylonian exile, Ezekiel saw a vision of an “idol that provokes [God] to jealousy” in the Jerusalem temple (Ezek. 8:3, 5), along with other idolatrous acts. The vision explains Israel’s exile and the divine abandonment of the temple.

Idolatry

An image or likeness of a deity, whether carved from wood, molded from metal, or even formed in one’s mind. Although idols are not strictly equivalent to the gods they represent—even pagans recognized that idols are only the physical medium through which a spirit reveals itself—the Bible does not distinguish between worshiping idols, worshiping other gods, or worshiping Yahweh through images.

In contrast to other ancient religions, the Bible rejects worship of all images as incompatible with worship of God. This includes images of Yahweh, since he is transcendent and cannot be represented by anything in creation. As Moses reminded Israel, they saw no form at Sinai but only heard God’s voice (Deut. 4:12). No form can adequately represent Yahweh, as he is incomparable. The Bible similarly forbids worshiping images of other deities because it elevates them to the status reserved for God alone. Thus, the second commandment prohibits making and worshiping idols in the image of anything found in heaven, on earth, or in the water (Exod. 20:4–5).

Idolatry is regularly likened to spiritual adultery or prostitution because it marks a breakdown of God’s covenant relationship with his people (Deut. 31:16; Ps. 106:36–39; Hos. 4:12–19). This corresponds to the fact that idol worship often included cultic prostitution and fertility rites. Prophets and psalmists alike ridiculed idols as things fashioned by human hands that were unable to see, hear, or otherwise help those who made them. Rather, these “gods” depended on humans for transportation and protection (Ps. 115:4–8; Isa. 40:19–20; 44:9–20). Idolaters were warned that they would become as worthless as the things they worshiped. While declaring that idols amount to nothing, both Testaments nevertheless consider them spiritually dangerous. This is because idols lead people away from properly worshiping Yahweh and expose them to demonic influences.

Despite its warnings against idolatry, the Bible records that Israel regularly failed to keep itself pure. Right after God’s supreme revelation at Sinai, Aaron led the nation in making and worshiping a golden calf (Exod. 32). The book of Judges shows how society had become degraded to the point that a man, Micah, and a tribe, Dan, engaged in idol worship (Judg. 17–18). When the monarchy was divided after Solomon’s rule, Jeroboam revived calf worship to preserve the loyalty of his people (1 Kings 12:25–33). Both historical and prophetic books cite idolatry as a major reason for the exile.

By NT times, idol worship was no longer a problem for Jews, but it remained an important issue for the growing church because many believers came from idolatrous backgrounds. Thus, the apostles included idolatry in lists of sins to be judged, warned their readers to flee from it, and addressed eating food sacrificed to idols. Indicating that idolatry went beyond worship of images, they linked it with the love of money (Matt. 6:24) and greed (Col. 3:5). The NT authors believed that their readers could turn from idols to worship the true and living God, praised them for doing so, and looked to the time when all idol worship would cease.

Idumea

A transliteration of Idoumaia, the Greek name for Edom (e.g., Gen. 36:16 LXX; Mark 3:8), the land given by God to Esau (Gen. 32:3), whose descendants were called “Edomites.” In NT times this was the homeland and critical power base of Herod the Great. After his death, Idumea was ruled by Archelaus and then Agrippa I. After Rome’s destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, Idumea was absorbed into the province of Judea and ceased to exist as such.

Iezer

A son of Gilead, one of the clans of Manasseh (Num. 26:30). He is the ancestor of the Iezerites. The name is probably a variant of “Abiezer” (see Josh. 17:2). See also Abiezer.

Iezerites

A son of Gilead, one of the clans of Manasseh (Num. 26:30). He is the ancestor of the Iezerites. The name is probably a variant of “Abiezer” (see Josh. 17:2). See also Abiezer.

Igael

(1) The son of Joseph from the tribe of Issachar who was one of the twelve spies (Num. 13:7). (2) One of David’s thirty mighty men (2 Sam. 23:36) whose name is elsewhere written as “Joel” (a difference of only one letter in Hebrew; 1 Chron. 11:38). (3) A son of Shemaiah, a descendant of Zerubbabel (1 Chron. 3:22).

Igal

(1) The son of Joseph from the tribe of Issachar who was one of the twelve spies (Num. 13:7). (2) One of David’s thirty mighty men (2 Sam. 23:36) whose name is elsewhere written as “Joel” (a difference of only one letter in Hebrew; 1 Chron. 11:38). (3) A son of Shemaiah, a descendant of Zerubbabel (1 Chron. 3:22).

Igdaliah

The biological father or the prophetic mentor of Hanan, “the man of God,” who lived in the temple during the time of Jeremiah (Jer. 35:4).

Ignorance

At creation, God made human beings to depend on him to reveal his purposes, so that their response to life would always involve trust in, and loving obedience to, his counsel. The entrance of sin created a barrier between people and God. Fallen humanity, in its autonomy, seeks to understand the world apart from knowledge of God (1 Cor. 2:14).

In Scripture, ignorance frequently refers to one’s inability to understand who God is or one’s true identity and purpose (Eph. 4:18). In ignorance, humanity disregards God’s revelation (Rom. 1:22–25). The darkened, idolatrous heart is the source of human blindness (Jer. 17:9; Ezek. 14:2–3). Satan holds people captive in blindness (2 Cor. 4:4). God revealed himself through prophetic messengers, but throughout the OT, God’s people disregarded their message. Although God raised up judges to lead his people, they repeatedly reverted to idolatry: “In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as they saw fit” (Judg. 21:25).

Jesus is the true light, which gives light to every person (John 1:9). Yet people loved darkness and would not come into the light for fear that their deeds would be exposed (John 3:20). However, through the Word, the Spirit can transform the hearts of people such as Paul, who formerly opposed Christ and his church in ignorance and unbelief (1 Tim. 1:13).

Ignorance, however, does not always entail sin. Our finitude implies that our knowledge will always be limited. God has appointed teachers to facilitate our growth in understanding (Eph. 4:11–12).

Iim

(1) A town allotted to Judah under Joshua (Josh. 15:29; several versions read “Iim”). Its precise location is unknown, but it was in the far south of Israel’s territory, in the Negev region (see Josh. 15:21). (2) A variant of “Iye Abarim” (Num. 33:45; KJV: “Iim”).

Ijeabarim

A place where the Israelites camped during the wilderness wanderings (Num. 21:11; 33:44). The name apparently is abbreviated as “Iyim” in Num. 33:45. The text locates it in “the desert that faces Moab toward the sunrise.” Abarim is the mountain range from which Moses viewed the promised land (Num. 27:12; 33:47–48; Deut. 32:49). See also Abarim.

Ijon

A city in far northern Israel in the territory of Naphtali, often among the first cities attacked by invaders entering from the north. Ijon was located some nine miles north-northwest of Dan in a small, fertile plain now called “Merj Ayun” (preserving the ancient name), part of an area important for the trade running from Damascus west to the coast and southwest toward the Jezreel Valley and Egypt. Ben-Hadad, king of Aram, invaded northern Israel around 900 BC and conquered Ijon, Dan, and Israelite territory farther south (1 Kings 15:20; 2 Chron. 16:4). Approximately 150 years later, the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III also conquered Ijon and other parts of northern Israel (2 Kings 15:29) when Assyria began its conquest of the region.

Ikkesh

The father of Ira from Tekoa, one of David’s military leaders known as the Thirty (2 Sam. 23:26; 1 Chron. 11:28), who commanded a unit of twenty-four thousand men (1 Chron. 27:9).

Ilai

One of David’s military leaders known as the Thirty (1 Chron. 11:29). From Ahoah, he is called “Zalmon” in 2 Sam. 23:28.

Illustration

Imagery pertains to the literary use of colorful figures of speech that can be visualized in the imagination. The biblical writers employ imagery frequently, for the images they use help to communicate God’s message more powerfully. Imagery communicates with readers not only at the cognitive (knowledge) level but also at the emotional level. For example, the prophet Amos could have just said to Israel that “God is angry” with them. But such language is flat and bland. Instead, Amos paints a graphic picture with his words by stating, “The lion has roared!” (Amos 3:8). This is a figure of speech in which Amos compares God to a lion roaring over its prey. In a culture where people did encounter dangerous lions and where all people held respect for the power of lions, this imagery connected at both the knowledge level and the emotional level.

Since, in essence, images are figures of speech, they can be used in a variety of ways: as metaphors, similes, direct analogies, or anthropomorphisms. Like these other figures of speech, biblical images reflect both points of similarity and points of difference in the two items being compared in the image. In Amos 3:8 the prophet is telling his audience something about God by using language normally associated with lions. Both God and the lion are extremely dangerous, and both are about to pounce on their prey. However, Amos expects his readers to also keep in mind that God is quite different from a lion in many, many ways.

The Bible contains hundreds of colorful images. To celebrate God’s wonderful love and care, David describes God with the image of a caring shepherd (Ps. 23). To communicate the joy of God’s material blessings, David paints a picture of meadows and valleys shouting and singing in joy (Ps. 65:13). Jeremiah wants to convey God’s disgust with Israel’s idolatry, so he refers to Jerusalem as a prostitute (Jer. 3:1). To underscore the strong contrast between sin and forgiveness, Isaiah states, “Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow” (Isa. 1:18).

Jesus uses imagery frequently in his teaching. For example, he compares the kingdom of heaven to a mustard seed, which starts small but slowly grows to become the largest of shrubs (Matt. 13:31–32). To illustrate the difficulty of a rich person entering the kingdom of heaven, Jesus paints a colorful and humorous image of a camel trying to get through the tiny eye of a needle (Matt. 19:24). He uses dozens of images to communicate different aspects of his personality and mission, comparing himself to a wide range of things: a gate, a vine, a light, a road, a shepherd, bread, and more. Paul uses imagery when he tells us to put on the armor of God (Eph. 6:10–18) and when he compares Jesus to a cornerstone (2:20). The book of Revelation is packed with vivid images, portraying, for example, Jesus as a lamb (Rev. 5:6) and Satan as a dragon (20:2).

Illyricum

A Roman province northwest of Macedonia along the eastern coast of the Adriatic Sea. It was the westernmost of the Roman provinces established across the northern part of the Balkan Peninsula, encompassing present-day Albania and the former Yugoslavia. Paul mentions Illyricum as the outermost boundary of his missionary journeys and proclamation of the gospel at the time of his writing of the Epistle to the Romans (Rom. 15:19). It is unclear whether Paul had traveled northward into the Illyricum province or only up to its southern border with Macedonia. His visit to its borders or interior may be implied in Acts 20:2. Paul’s associate Titus traveled to Dalmatia, the region of southern Illyricum (2 Tim. 4:10).

Image of God

That humankind has been created in the image of God indicates its unique status above the animals because of a special similarity with God. This status authorizes humankind to rule the earth and requires respect toward people. The particulars of what the phrase “image of God” means have been understood in many ways.

The phrase is rather rare. It first appears in Gen. 1:26–27, and the same or similar phrases occur in five more verses (Gen. 5:1, 3; 9:6; 1 Cor. 11:7; James 3:9) that refer back to it. The NT also refers to Christ as the image of God and to believers becoming like the image of Christ.

Understanding Genesis 1:26–27

This makes Gen. 1:26–27 the starting point for understanding the phrase. Several factors come into play: the contrast with the creation of animals on the same day; the connection with humankind ruling the other creatures; other elements of the broader context; the meaning of the words “image” (tselem) and “likeness” (demut); the meaning of the preposition “in”; and the meaning and use of images in the ancient Near East.

In the immediately preceding context, animals are made “according to their kinds,” whereas humans are made “in the image of God.” The context directly following also makes a distinction between the two, granting humans rule, or dominion, over the animals. Being in the image of God certainly involves what makes humans unique in contrast to the rest of the animal kingdom.

The history of interpretation of the phrase “image of God” is long and voluminous. Just about anything from the broader context that seems important to the interpreter might be selected as the key meaning; or whatever philosophical system is dominant at the time when the interpreter writes might be tapped as the “obvious” explanation of what being in the image of God means; or perhaps the insights of a particular academic discipline or systematic theological system might be given preference. Thus, the meaning of being created in the image of God has been associated with many things, such as language, eternal soul, rationality, relationality, being male and female (often compared to the Trinity), physical appearance, dominion, and personhood. The wide variety is possible because the text of Scripture does not spell it out, and the options seem reasonable to their various proponents as explaining the uniqueness of humanity, something that clearly serves the context.

Although many of these insights may be reasonable and relevant, it can be problematic to select one as the key element. For example, to support the suggestion that being in the image of God means walking erect on two feet, one could point out that (1) humankind’s “walking” is in the broader context, (2) human beings “walking” with God uniquely contrasts to the circumstances of other animals, and (3) standing erect on two feet is a dominance move in the animal kingdom. But this is unlikely to be convincing to anyone, for good reason. And the many options offered by interpreters often look equally out of place from another’s perspective. For example, the text emphasizes that God created them “male and female,” a unity with a difference. God is a trinity, a unity with a difference. Is this, then, the image of God? Someone might point out that the animals are also male and female, and that the text does not necessarily have the Trinity in view (there are other explanations for the plural “us” in Gen. 1:26, which many consider better explanations).

Studying the words “image” and “likeness” does not quickly clarify the issue. “Image” normally refers to a statue, typically of a god. And “likeness” normally refers to similar physical appearance. The true God is a spirit, lacking a particular physical form, and he forbids making a statue of himself. If the three-dimensional human physique is not the point, what remains of the terms “image” and “likeness” is simply some notion of similarity. It is this vagueness that has promoted diverse understandings.

The preposition “in” is also much discussed, for it might mean “in” or “as.” Thus humanity is perhaps made in a like appearance to God, or in an unspecified similarity to God. Or humanity has been created as God’s image on the earth. The first emphasizes what humanity is (being), the second what humanity is to do (function). Yet the two, being and function, certainly are related, so the difference between them may be overstated.

The surrounding cultures of the ancient Near East made images of their gods. They believed not that the statue actually was the god but rather that it invoked the presence of the god and represented the god to the people as a central location for interaction. The Babylonian word for “image” is similar to the Hebrew and also usually refers to a statue or artistic representation. It is sometimes used figuratively about a king being the image of a god. And in Egypt we find the idea that humanity is the image of gods. This conceptual backdrop aligns with an understanding that being in the image of God relates to the function of ruling.

Additionally, the phrase “and let them rule over” occurs in a sequence that can indicate purpose or result. Thus, the passage may be rendered, “Let us make man as our image, as our likeness, so that they may rule.” That is, God set up human beings with a distinct nature for a distinct task, which he expressly includes when blessing them (Gen. 1:28). We might still infer from general revelation some of the details that are relevant to that uniqueness, but we should avoid elevating them in importance.

Other Biblical Passages

The passages that refer back to Gen. 1:26–27 emphasize honor and respect for human individuals. Humans are to dominate the earth, not one another. They should not kill one another; otherwise they become subject to the death penalty (Gen. 9:6), and they should not curse others but instead treat them with honor (James 3:9). But the motif has no real prominence other than being in the beginning of the Bible. After Gen. 9:6, the OT does not use the phrase “image of God.” The concept of human rule appears (e.g., Ps. 8), but the expression “image of God” is more a subpoint under a larger topic than it is a heading for biblical teaching.

In the NT, Jesus is twice identified by the Greek equivalent to the Hebrew phrase “image of God” (2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15). Especially in the context of Col. 1:15, the emphasis is on Christ’s deity and so part of a different topic, despite the similar wording. The two verses about believers that refer to the likeness of God and the image of the Creator (Col. 3:10; Eph. 4:24) deal with moral behavior and the sanctification of the believer (cf. Rom. 8:29; 2 Cor. 3:18). Although they do not directly refer to Gen. 1, they do address the common metaphor that humankind, by sinning, marred its imaging of God. To be conformed to the image of Christ restores how humanity images God in the world.

Image Worship

An image or likeness of a deity, whether carved from wood, molded from metal, or even formed in one’s mind. Although idols are not strictly equivalent to the gods they represent—even pagans recognized that idols are only the physical medium through which a spirit reveals itself—the Bible does not distinguish between worshiping idols, worshiping other gods, or worshiping Yahweh through images.

In contrast to other ancient religions, the Bible rejects worship of all images as incompatible with worship of God. This includes images of Yahweh, since he is transcendent and cannot be represented by anything in creation. As Moses reminded Israel, they saw no form at Sinai but only heard God’s voice (Deut. 4:12). No form can adequately represent Yahweh, as he is incomparable. The Bible similarly forbids worshiping images of other deities because it elevates them to the status reserved for God alone. Thus, the second commandment prohibits making and worshiping idols in the image of anything found in heaven, on earth, or in the water (Exod. 20:4–5).

Idolatry is regularly likened to spiritual adultery or prostitution because it marks a breakdown of God’s covenant relationship with his people (Deut. 31:16; Ps. 106:36–39; Hos. 4:12–19). This corresponds to the fact that idol worship often included cultic prostitution and fertility rites. Prophets and psalmists alike ridiculed idols as things fashioned by human hands that were unable to see, hear, or otherwise help those who made them. Rather, these “gods” depended on humans for transportation and protection (Ps. 115:4–8; Isa. 40:19–20; 44:9–20). Idolaters were warned that they would become as worthless as the things they worshiped. While declaring that idols amount to nothing, both Testaments nevertheless consider them spiritually dangerous. This is because idols lead people away from properly worshiping Yahweh and expose them to demonic influences.

Despite its warnings against idolatry, the Bible records that Israel regularly failed to keep itself pure. Right after God’s supreme revelation at Sinai, Aaron led the nation in making and worshiping a golden calf (Exod. 32). The book of Judges shows how society had become degraded to the point that a man, Micah, and a tribe, Dan, engaged in idol worship (Judg. 17–18). When the monarchy was divided after Solomon’s rule, Jeroboam revived calf worship to preserve the loyalty of his people (1 Kings 12:25–33). Both historical and prophetic books cite idolatry as a major reason for the exile.

By NT times, idol worship was no longer a problem for Jews, but it remained an important issue for the growing church because many believers came from idolatrous backgrounds. Thus, the apostles included idolatry in lists of sins to be judged, warned their readers to flee from it, and addressed eating food sacrificed to idols. Indicating that idolatry went beyond worship of images, they linked it with the love of money (Matt. 6:24) and greed (Col. 3:5). The NT authors believed that their readers could turn from idols to worship the true and living God, praised them for doing so, and looked to the time when all idol worship would cease.

Imagery

Imagery pertains to the literary use of colorful figures of speech that can be visualized in the imagination. The biblical writers employ imagery frequently, for the images they use help to communicate God’s message more powerfully. Imagery communicates with readers not only at the cognitive (knowledge) level but also at the emotional level. For example, the prophet Amos could have just said to Israel that “God is angry” with them. But such language is flat and bland. Instead, Amos paints a graphic picture with his words by stating, “The lion has roared!” (Amos 3:8). This is a figure of speech in which Amos compares God to a lion roaring over its prey. In a culture where people did encounter dangerous lions and where all people held respect for the power of lions, this imagery connected at both the knowledge level and the emotional level.

Since, in essence, images are figures of speech, they can be used in a variety of ways: as metaphors, similes, direct analogies, or anthropomorphisms. Like these other figures of speech, biblical images reflect both points of similarity and points of difference in the two items being compared in the image. In Amos 3:8 the prophet is telling his audience something about God by using language normally associated with lions. Both God and the lion are extremely dangerous, and both are about to pounce on their prey. However, Amos expects his readers to also keep in mind that God is quite different from a lion in many, many ways.

The Bible contains hundreds of colorful images. To celebrate God’s wonderful love and care, David describes God with the image of a caring shepherd (Ps. 23). To communicate the joy of God’s material blessings, David paints a picture of meadows and valleys shouting and singing in joy (Ps. 65:13). Jeremiah wants to convey God’s disgust with Israel’s idolatry, so he refers to Jerusalem as a prostitute (Jer. 3:1). To underscore the strong contrast between sin and forgiveness, Isaiah states, “Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow” (Isa. 1:18).

Jesus uses imagery frequently in his teaching. For example, he compares the kingdom of heaven to a mustard seed, which starts small but slowly grows to become the largest of shrubs (Matt. 13:31–32). To illustrate the difficulty of a rich person entering the kingdom of heaven, Jesus paints a colorful and humorous image of a camel trying to get through the tiny eye of a needle (Matt. 19:24). He uses dozens of images to communicate different aspects of his personality and mission, comparing himself to a wide range of things: a gate, a vine, a light, a road, a shepherd, bread, and more. Paul uses imagery when he tells us to put on the armor of God (Eph. 6:10–18) and when he compares Jesus to a cornerstone (2:20). The book of Revelation is packed with vivid images, portraying, for example, Jesus as a lamb (Rev. 5:6) and Satan as a dragon (20:2).

Imagination

Often used in a negative sense, the words translated “imagine” and “imagination” relate to the ability to think with the mind, to devise or construct a plan, or one’s own thoughts in contrast to God’s thoughts (Ezek. 13:2, 17). In the OT, imagination is often related to plans with evil intent (Gen. 8:21; Deut. 31:21; Jer. 3:17; 7:24 KJV). Occasionally it refers to using one’s imagination to remain focused on God’s plans (1 Chron. 28:9; 29:18; Isa. 26:3). The NT word is concerned with the product of reasoning and is used negatively (Matt. 9:4; 12:25; Col. 1:21), positively (2 Pet. 3:1), and neutrally (Heb. 4:12). When it derives from the human ability to reason, the end product seems to more consistently lead to negative outcomes (Gen. 6:5).

Imitate

To appropriate the thought or behavior of others. God warns Israel not to imitate “the detestable ways of the nations” (Deut. 18:9; cf. Exod. 23:24; Lev. 18:3). Israel’s desire for cultural assimilation, leading to idolatry, incurs divine judgment (2 Kings 17:15; Ezek. 20:32; 25:8). The NT carries forward this warning to Christians, who must embrace their citizenship in heaven (Phil. 3:20; cf. Rom. 12:1–2; James 4:4; 1 John 2:15; 5:5, 19).

Inversely, to imitate the humility of Christ, complete submission to the will of God, regardless of the cost, is a core virtue (Phil. 2:1–11; Titus 3:2; cf. Matt. 11:28–30). Paul invites others to imitate him as he imitates Christ (1 Cor. 11:1; 2 Thess. 3:7–9; 2 Tim. 3:10–12). By obeying Christ, a disciple imitates God (Eph. 5:1–2).

Imitation incarnates faith. To this end, Jesus spends time with his disciples, allowing them to observe his way for approximately three years before submitting to the painful conclusion of God’s will for his earthly ministry (Mark 3:14; 14:36). Jesus commands his disciples to imitate his washing of their feet, a task normally reserved for the lowest household slave (John 13:12–20), and to pick up their own crosses (Mark 8:34 pars.). “A student,” he reminds them, “is not above his teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like his teacher” (Luke 6:40).

Imlah

The father of the prophet Micaiah, who prophesied the defeat of King Ahab (1 Kings 22:8–9). The name is spelled “Imla” in some translations of 2 Chron. 18:7–8 (KJV, NASB).

Immanuel

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

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

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

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

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

Immateriality

The nonphysical or spiritual aspect of reality. God is an immaterial (nonphysical) spirit being (John 1:18; 4:24; Acts 17:24; 2 Cor. 3:17) who created other nonphysical beings (i.e., angels and demons) but made humans as creatures with both physical and nonphysical aspects (Matt. 10:28; Luke 12:4–5; 2 Cor. 5:1–10; Phil. 1:21–24). Jesus is the ultimate combination of immaterial and material (John 1:14; Col. 1:15–20).

Immer

(1) In 1 Chron. 24:14, Immer is listed as the head of the sixteenth priestly division at the time of David. Other priests are designated as descendants of Immer. (2) The father or ancestor of Pashhur, who put Jeremiah in prison (Jer. 20:1). (3) The ancestor of Maasai, who returned to Jerusalem after the exile (1 Chron. 9:12; Neh. 11:13). (4) The ancestor of a family of priests (conceivably to be identified with one of the above), numbering 1,052, who returned from Babylon to Judah with Zerubabbel right after Cyrus the Persian king issued a decree allowing the exiles to return (Ezra 2:37; Neh. 7:40). Two members of his family were guilty of intermarriage with foreigners during the time of Ezra (Ezra 10:20). (5) The father of Zadok, who worked on Nehemiah’s wall and who may be a non-Levite (Neh. 3:29). (6) An unknown location in Babylon from which some exiles returned to Judah in 539 BC or soon after, some of whom are listed as unable to establish their genealogical connections to Israel (Ezra 2:59; Neh. 7:61).

Immoral

The NT tends to define immorality by listing specific sins rather than speaking of immorality in the abstract (Matt. 15:19; 1 Cor. 5:11; 6:9–10; Gal. 5:19–21; Rev. 21:8; 22:15). These lists include evil thoughts, murder, adultery, illicit sexual behavior, theft, false testimony, slander, greed, idolatry, drunkenness, swindling, male prostitution, homosexuality, impurity, debauchery, witchcraft, hatred, discord, jealousy, rage, selfishness, dissension and faction, envy, magic, and lying. In Galatians Paul further describes these actions as the “acts of the flesh“ (5:19), in contrast with the “fruit of the Spirit” (5:22).

Immorality

The NT tends to define immorality by listing specific sins rather than speaking of immorality in the abstract (Matt. 15:19; 1 Cor. 5:11; 6:9–10; Gal. 5:19–21; Rev. 21:8; 22:15). These lists include evil thoughts, murder, adultery, illicit sexual behavior, theft, false testimony, slander, greed, idolatry, drunkenness, swindling, male prostitution, homosexuality, impurity, debauchery, witchcraft, hatred, discord, jealousy, rage, selfishness, dissension and faction, envy, magic, and lying. In Galatians Paul further describes these actions as the “acts of the flesh“ (5:19), in contrast with the “fruit of the Spirit” (5:22).

Immortal

The quality of being not mortal, living forever. The OT cryptically mentions Enoch (Gen. 5:24) and Elijah (2 Kings 2:1–12) ascending into heaven without passing through death or Sheol. Otherwise, mortality is presented as part of the universal human condition, a result of Adam and Eve’s disobedience (Gen. 2:17; 5:1–32).

Eventually, two solutions were embraced. Some Jews appropriated the Hellenistic concept of the immortal soul. But this is not clearly taught in the Bible, which furthermore claims that only God has the power to bestow immortality (e.g., Pss. 49; 73). The modern Western mind often views death as a sudden happening, the ceasing of brain functions, whereas other cultures regard dying as a process advancing from the moment of birth and continuing beyond the grave. In the creation story, God warns Adam that if he eats from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he will die that very day (Gen. 2:17). But despite eating from the tree, Adam lives on physically for almost a millennium (Gen. 5:5), and so this sin-begotten death describes separation from God. Jesus will overcome this separation at the cross (Luke 23:43; cf. Matt. 10:28 par.). For those who trust this work—believe in his name—death is already overcome because they are reconciled with God. Life is no longer bound, as it were, to brain activity, but rather is unbound in the immortal being of God. By reconciling others to God, Jesus is able to promise eternal life (John 3:15, 36; 5:24). Indeed, John writes his Gospel to advance this promise (20:31).

Three NT assertions need to be taken into account in ascertaining biblical perspectives on immortality: (1) God is immortal (Rom. 1:23; 1 Tim. 1:17); (2) God alone is immortal (1 Tim. 6:16); (3) God grants immortality to those who seek him (Rom. 2:7; 1 Cor. 15:53–54; 2 Tim. 1:10). These assertions are important in distinguishing immortality from the idea of the continued existence of some part of the human makeup after the death of the body. The word “immortality” should be reserved to refer to the existence of body and soul together for eternity. Human beings, therefore, do not intrinsically possess immortality; it must be granted by God.

This distinction, however, does not in any way negate the abundant biblical evidence that the human soul or spirit continues in some form after the death of the body. In the OT, that continuation is usually conceived of as a vague, shadowy existence in a place called “Sheol.” In the NT, for the Christian, that continuation is envisioned as being in the presence of Christ (2 Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:23). But immortality is the eternal life of body and soul together. Whatever view one takes of the eternal state of the wicked, their existence should not be regarded as one of immortality. Rather, it is the “second death” (Rev. 21:8).

Immortality

The quality of being not mortal, living forever. The OT cryptically mentions Enoch (Gen. 5:24) and Elijah (2 Kings 2:1–12) ascending into heaven without passing through death or Sheol. Otherwise, mortality is presented as part of the universal human condition, a result of Adam and Eve’s disobedience (Gen. 2:17; 5:1–32).

Eventually, two solutions were embraced. Some Jews appropriated the Hellenistic concept of the immortal soul. But this is not clearly taught in the Bible, which furthermore claims that only God has the power to bestow immortality (e.g., Pss. 49; 73). The modern Western mind often views death as a sudden happening, the ceasing of brain functions, whereas other cultures regard dying as a process advancing from the moment of birth and continuing beyond the grave. In the creation story, God warns Adam that if he eats from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he will die that very day (Gen. 2:17). But despite eating from the tree, Adam lives on physically for almost a millennium (Gen. 5:5), and so this sin-begotten death describes separation from God. Jesus will overcome this separation at the cross (Luke 23:43; cf. Matt. 10:28 par.). For those who trust this work—believe in his name—death is already overcome because they are reconciled with God. Life is no longer bound, as it were, to brain activity, but rather is unbound in the immortal being of God. By reconciling others to God, Jesus is able to promise eternal life (John 3:15, 36; 5:24). Indeed, John writes his Gospel to advance this promise (20:31).

Three NT assertions need to be taken into account in ascertaining biblical perspectives on immortality: (1) God is immortal (Rom. 1:23; 1 Tim. 1:17); (2) God alone is immortal (1 Tim. 6:16); (3) God grants immortality to those who seek him (Rom. 2:7; 1 Cor. 15:53–54; 2 Tim. 1:10). These assertions are important in distinguishing immortality from the idea of the continued existence of some part of the human makeup after the death of the body. The word “immortality” should be reserved to refer to the existence of body and soul together for eternity. Human beings, therefore, do not intrinsically possess immortality; it must be granted by God.

This distinction, however, does not in any way negate the abundant biblical evidence that the human soul or spirit continues in some form after the death of the body. In the OT, that continuation is usually conceived of as a vague, shadowy existence in a place called “Sheol.” In the NT, for the Christian, that continuation is envisioned as being in the presence of Christ (2 Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:23). But immortality is the eternal life of body and soul together. Whatever view one takes of the eternal state of the wicked, their existence should not be regarded as one of immortality. Rather, it is the “second death” (Rev. 21:8).

Immutability of God

The biblical writers assure us that God does not change. The psalmist contrasts the perishable cosmos with the Creator himself: “But you remain the same, and your years will never end” (Ps. 102:27). In Mal. 3:6, God says that Jacob’s sons will not be consumed, because “I the Lord do not change.” James has the same objective: to reassure his people that God will remain the source of good things, since God “does not change like shifting shadows” (James 1:17). This doctrine of God’s unchangeableness, or immutability, should comfort his people because it implies that he is ever willing and able to keep his promises. A changeable God might decide not to honor his commitments or become powerless to do so. In the first case, he loses his moral perfection; in the second, he ceases to be omnipotent.

God’s status as a perfect being makes this doctrine difficult to formulate, based on the worry that perfect things cannot change without becoming imperfect. Thus, Aristotle’s God, the “Unmoved Mover,” could do nothing but contemplate his own excellence, since all other topics would be lesser. Similarly, such a “god” could not even monitor the goings-on of human existence, since this activity would change the content of his own mind. Aristotle’s God is “self-actualized” in every imaginable sense. But while the Bible says that God does not change, it also tells us that he relates to human beings and their lives in all sorts of ways. He enjoys fellowship with Adam before the fall and gets angry when his people sin. God loves us, and he has worked in history to show us who he is and to redeem us. The incarnation of Christ, the Son, is the prime example of God’s apparent mutability or changeableness on some level, however one describes it. At the very least, he changes with respect to his temporal relationships every time a sinner repents: the latter was lost, and now is found.

The doctrine of the immutability of God must come to grips with passages like Gen. 6:5–7; Exod. 32:14; Jer. 18:7–10; 26:19; Amos 7:3; and Jon. 3:10, which suggest that God sometimes regrets past decisions, changes his mind, and reverses himself in response to human actions, whether positive or negative. Some Christians respond to these passages by asserting that God is semidependent on creation (“process theology”) or mutable in his knowledge and purposes (“open theism”). A better solution is to distinguish between (1) God’s essential nature and eternal purposes, which cannot change, and (2) his contingent relationships. God never retreats and never improvises, nor can he become “ungodlike.” Nevertheless, he is a real person, fully able to experience anger, joy, love, and longing—not less because he is God, but rather far more so.

Imna

A descendant of Asher (1 Chron. 7:35) who was a warrior and the head of a family (7:40).

Imnah

(1) The first son of Asher and the ancestor of the Imnites (Gen. 46:17; Num. 26:44; 1 Chron. 7:30). (2) The Levite father of Kore, who was keeper of the East Gate of Jerusalem and appointed by Hezekiah and Azariah to manage freewill offerings to God (2 Chron. 31:14).

Imnite

(1) The first son of Asher and the ancestor of the Imnites (Gen. 46:17; Num. 26:44; 1 Chron. 7:30). (2) The Levite father of Kore, who was keeper of the East Gate of Jerusalem and appointed by Hezekiah and Azariah to manage freewill offerings to God (2 Chron. 31:14).

Impediment in Speech

In Mark 7:32 Jesus heals a man who was deaf and “mute” (mogilalos) by spitting, touching his ears and tongue, and saying, “Be opened!” The exact nature of the speech impediment is unclear, though it is described figuratively as a “binding of the tongue” (7:35; NIV “could hardly talk”). In Exod. 4:10, Moses describes himself as “slow of speech and tongue,” which many interpreters have understood as referring to a speech impediment; however, this may refer more broadly to a perceived lack of eloquence rather than to a literal impairment.

Imperishability

The property or state of not being subject to decay or deterioration, and thus heavenly. “Imperishability” (Gk. aphtharsia) and immortality are closely linked; note that the Greek adjective for “imperishable,” aphthartos, can be translated “immortal” (e.g., Rom. 1:23). Often the Bible contrasts the imperishable with the perishable. Thus, Paul contrasts the perishable earthly body with the imperishable resurrection body (1 Cor. 15:42, 50–55) and an imperishable reward with a perishable reward (1 Cor. 9:25 NRSV, NET). Peter explains that the believer’s new birth is “not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God” (1 Pet. 1:23).

Imperishable

The property or state of not being subject to decay or deterioration, and thus heavenly. “Imperishability” (Gk. aphtharsia) and immortality are closely linked; note that the Greek adjective for “imperishable,” aphthartos, can be translated “immortal” (e.g., Rom. 1:23). Often the Bible contrasts the imperishable with the perishable. Thus, Paul contrasts the perishable earthly body with the imperishable resurrection body (1 Cor. 15:42, 50–55) and an imperishable reward with a perishable reward (1 Cor. 9:25 NRSV, NET). Peter explains that the believer’s new birth is “not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God” (1 Pet. 1:23).

Importunity

The KJV translation of the Greek noun anaideia, which occurs only once in the NT, in the parable of the friend at midnight (Luke 11:8). Debate on its interpretation—“importunity,” “shameless audacity” (NIV), “persistence” (NRSV, NET)—arises from the word’s etymology (lit., “shamelessness”) and the parable’s context. In the parable, the giver grants the request of the asker “because of his anaideia.” But is it the asker’s shameless gall or is it the giver’s desire to avoid shame?

Impotent

To God belongs all power (Ps. 62:11), and in comparison all others are impotent (i.e., without power), including idols and gods made by human hands (Isa. 44:17; Jer. 10:5) and people who appear to be strong (Deut. 9:2–3; Ezek. 34:16). At the cross, Jesus destroyed Satan’s power over death (Heb. 2:14) and “disarmed the powers and authorities” (Col. 2:15). Jesus died for us while we were powerless or “weak” (Gk. asthenēs [Rom. 5:6]), and believers are now empowered by his Spirit for life and ministry (2 Pet. 1:3).

Imprecation

An imprecation is generally considered a type of curse that calls for harm on someone. The harm comes from divine intervention rather than deliberate human retribution. In a psalm, an imprecation is a type of petition, and psalms containing strong requests of imprecation are called “imprecatory prayers.” In the psalms, imprecations are not merely ill-spirited curses made for the convenience or profit of the speaker. The harm that the psalmists request is in line with the judicial penalties in the law (or possibly prophetic oracles of judgment that have been issued [cf. Ps. 137 with Isa. 13–14; Jer. 50–51; Hab. 2]). That is, the psalmists ask for punishment of guilty parties that fits the crime, often including the same level of atrocity committed by the wicked. The people who are objects of imprecations are the enemies of God, and making an imprecation both calls for God to act and leaves the specific action to God’s choosing.

Imprecatory Psalms

An imprecation is generally considered a type of curse that calls for harm on someone. The harm comes from divine intervention rather than deliberate human retribution. In a psalm, an imprecation is a type of petition, and psalms containing strong requests of imprecation are called “imprecatory prayers.” In the psalms, imprecations are not merely ill-spirited curses made for the convenience or profit of the speaker. The harm that the psalmists request is in line with the judicial penalties in the law (or possibly prophetic oracles of judgment that have been issued [cf. Ps. 137 with Isa. 13–14; Jer. 50–51; Hab. 2]). That is, the psalmists ask for punishment of guilty parties that fits the crime, often including the same level of atrocity committed by the wicked. The people who are objects of imprecations are the enemies of God, and making an imprecation both calls for God to act and leaves the specific action to God’s choosing.

Imprisoned

Imprisonment of Criminals

In comparing modern society to that of biblical times, it is important to acknowledge what is distinctive about prisons in many modern societies. Prisons serve multiple functions, including imposing incarceration as punishment for crimes committed, segregating dangerous criminals from the larger population, deterring crime by imposing a negative incentive, and rehabilitating offenders so that they can eventually return to society. In many cases where modern law imposes incarceration as the penalty for crime, ancient and biblical law imposed economic penalties (such as fines), corporal punishment (beatings), and capital punishment (death). In addition, many of the biblical references to prisons and prisoners involve what in modern society would be considered political rather than criminal incarceration.

The story of Joseph prominently features an Egyptian prison. Joseph was falsely put in prison for the crime of molesting his master’s wife (Gen. 39:19–20), while his companions were imprisoned for the otherwise unspecified crime of causing offense to the king (40:1). As this story illustrates, the sentences were not of a predetermined duration, and release depended on the goodwill of the king (Gen. 40:13), a situation in which Paul also found himself hundreds of years later during Roman times (Acts 24:27). When Joseph imprisoned his brothers, it was on a presumption of guilt for the crime of espionage (Gen. 42:16). In Roman times, in contrast, certain prisoners had a right to be put on trial eventually, if not quickly (Acts 25:27; see also 16:37). Imprisonment could also be imposed for failure to pay a debt (Matt. 18:30). Joseph kept Simeon in prison as a guarantee that his brothers would fulfill a prior agreement (Gen. 42:19, 24). In addition to specialized dungeons, prisoners could also be confined in houses (Jer. 37:15; Acts 28:16) and pits (Zech. 9:11).

Political Imprisonment

In a number of biblical stories individuals are imprisoned for what we would today describe as political or ideological reasons. Samson was imprisoned by the Philistines in retaliation for the havoc that he had wreaked in their land and probably to prevent further incidents (Judg. 16:21). While in prison, Samson was enslaved. Several Israelite and Judean kings were imprisoned by their Mesopotamian overlords for offenses ranging from failure to pay taxes to revolt, including Hoshea (2 Kings 17:4), Jehoiachin (2 Kings 25:27–29), Manasseh (2 Chron. 33:11), and Zedekiah (Jer. 52:11). In some cases, the imprisonment of such elites was brutal and involved torture (2 Chron. 33:11; Jer. 52:11), though Jehoiachin was later released from prison and allowed to live out his captivity in some comfort (2 Kings 25:27–29).

In the NT, individuals were also imprisoned for such crimes. Barabbas was imprisoned by the Roman government of Judea for participating in an insurrection (Mark 15:7). Saul of Tarsus imprisoned a number of Christians, apparently without what we would today recognize as any criminal offense (Acts 8:3). Peter was imprisoned by Herod for political gain (Acts 12:4). Paul and Silas were imprisoned for disturbing the peace of Philippi (Acts 16:23).

Imprisonment of Prophets

A special case of political incarceration is the imprisonment of prophets. From the point of view of the biblical writers, prophets were imprisoned for speaking the truth to a powerful person who did not want to hear it. From the point of view of those in power, imprisoning dissenters was an important way of suppressing opinions that could undermine the regime. In some cases, the imprisonment of dissenters or troublemakers was a prelude to execution (John the Baptist and Jesus). The practice of imprisonment instead of immediate execution may reflect the ambivalent attitude of rulers toward controversial prophets: they could not be allowed to move about freely in society, but they had some status or right as prophet that prevented their execution. In some cases, prophets managed to confront a king without being punished, suggesting that there was a certain level of tolerance for them even when they were not supportive of royal power, a tolerance that might have contributed to the use of imprisonment instead of execution.

Ahab imprisoned Micaiah son of Imlah after he delivered an unfavorable oracle (1 Kings 22:27). Similarly, Asa imprisoned Hanani the seer (2 Chron. 16:10). These kings may have hoped that such treatment would coerce better news in the future. Jeremiah (Jer. 37:15) and John the Baptist (Mark 6:17) were also imprisoned for delivering unwelcome messages to those in power.

Theological Significance

In both Testaments, release from prison is a symbol of God’s salvation. The theme is prominent in the psalms, as in Ps. 146:7: “The Lord sets prisoners free” (see also Pss. 68:6; 107:10; 142:7). In Acts 12:7 Peter is freed from prison by a divinely sent messenger. Paul wrote a number of letters from prison and identified himself as a prisoner of Christ (Eph. 3:1; Col. 4:10; 2 Tim. 1:8; Philem. 1). Some texts refer in mythological terms to a prison that confines spirits or Satan (1 Pet. 3:19; Rev. 20:7).

Impurity

A holy God wants a holy people. He had described the nation of Israel as holy (cf. Exod. 19:5–6) but also wanted them to live holy lives and grow increasingly holy. Holiness came, in part, by keeping the law; an important part of the law was the concept of cleanness.

Old Testament

Since Israel could become holy only by being clean, it is no surprise that the law’s first mention of prohibited food is accompanied by a command to be God’s holy people (Exod. 22:31). Nor is it unexpected that when God explains the laws about clean and unclean food, he tells the Israelites twice to “be holy, because I am holy” (Lev. 11:44–47).

Cleanness (Heb. tahor) does not refer to good hygiene, nor is it synonymous with morality, since a person could be unclean and still righteous. Cleanness allowed the OT believer to live a holy life and enabled that person to be made increasingly holy by “Yahweh, your sanctifier” (NIV: “the Lord, who makes you holy,” Lev. 20:8; cf. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; 31:13). Before considering how ritual purity led to holiness, we should summarize the purity laws themselves.

Purity laws. Impurity traveled along four channels: sexuality (e.g., nocturnal emission, menstruation, childbirth), diet (e.g., eating certain types of animals), disease (e.g., skin diseases, mildew), and death (i.e., contact with animal or human corpses). Impurities occurring naturally and unavoidably in the course of life (e.g., menstruation) were tolerated, representing no danger to the person or community as long as they were promptly addressed. Other impurities had to be avoided at all costs or else grave consequences would result to the person and community.

Tolerated impurities. We can further divide tolerated impurities into minor and major. Minor impurities resulted from touching an animal carcass or touching someone with a major impurity. Minor impurities did not make one contagious and could be addressed simply. Major impurities resulted from touching a human corpse, having a skin disease, or experiencing a nocturnal emission or menstruation. With these, one became “contagious,” purification took longer, and a sacrifice was required.

In order to become clean, the contaminant must be removed, with removal occurring in different ways. Tolerated impurities were removed by washing (bathing, laundering clothes, and sprinkling with water). What could not be washed away must be physically taken away, whether through burial, burning, or removal from the camp (e.g., scapegoat; Lev. 16:20–22).

Cleansing took time; generally the more serious the impurity, the longer the time, from one day for those who touch a dead animal, up to eighty days following the birth of a female child. Some tolerated impurities required sacrifices, with the animal’s blood being sprinkled against the side of the altar and poured out at its base (Lev. 5).

Ritual actions might accompany the sacrifices. For example, a person who had been healed of a contagious skin disease was to bring two live, clean birds to the priest. One bird was to be killed and its blood mixed with water, which was then sprinkled on the person. The other bird was dipped into the blood/water mixture and released, symbolizing the removal of the uncleanness. In the ritual of the red heifer (Num. 19), a combination of water and ashes was used to purify those who had touched a corpse.

Impurities to be avoided. Unlike the tolerated impurities that could not be avoided, certain objects and actions were completely off-limits to the holy people of God. Intentional violation brought more serious consequences, even being “cut off” from the community. Although it is unclear exactly what it meant to be cut off—perhaps excommunication, capital punishment, vulnerability to an untimely death, loss of progeny, or separation from one’s ancestors after death—the threat was ominous.

One prohibited impurity arose from eating food declared off-limits by God. All meat had to be thoroughly bled before being eaten (Gen. 9:3–4; Lev. 17:10–14; Deut. 12:16, 23). Edible land animals must both have a completely divided hoof and chew the cud (Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6), while water creatures had to have both fins and scales (Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9). Most birds were acceptable for food (exceptions are given in Lev. 11:13–19; Deut. 14:11–18), as were most insects (Lev. 11:20–23; Deut. 14:19–20) and some crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–31, 41–42).

Other prohibited impurities included what might be more readily identified as sinful acts. Sexual immorality (Lev. 18:6–25), idolatry (20:2–5), consulting mediums (20:6), and murder (Num. 35:33–34) defiled people and land. If such offenses were not “cleansed,” God would judge, whether by natural disaster (Isa. 24:1–13) or exile (Isa. 64:6–7; Mic. 2:10).

Reasons for the laws. Why did God declare certain things clean and others unclean? Some suggest that the distinction is arbitrary; the rules are given as a test of obedience. Others argue that the original audience knew of reasons now lost to us. Still others believe that God was protecting his people from disease. It is true that certain kinds of meat improperly prepared can transmit disease, but not all laws can be explained this way. Some believe that God identified things as clean because they represented a state of normalcy (e.g., fish normally propel themselves with fins, so those lacking fins are abnormal and thus unclean). A related view considers things as clean or unclean based on what they symbolized. So, for example, God identified objects as unclean if they were associated with death (e.g., vultures, corpses) because he is for life. Here again, it is difficult to explain all the laws by appeal to normalcy or symbolism.

Cleanness and holiness. While we may not know for certain why God chose these particular laws, we can see how they helped his people become holy.

First, these laws made possible access to the sanctuary, where holiness could be expressed and developed. The law of Moses contains repeated and stern reminders that those who are unclean may not “go to the sanctuary” (Lev. 10:10; 12:4; 15:31; Num. 19:13, 20). Only the clean could approach a holy God and participate in the rituals that demonstrated and developed their holiness.

Second, these rituals also fostered holiness by teaching the Israelites about impurity. Israel’s neighbors associated impurity with demons, but God indicated that it would be an Israelite’s uncleanness, not demonic activity, that kept that person from living a holy life.

Third, these purity laws taught the Israelites about the holy God, whom they were to imitate. If even innocent and otherwise good experiences prevented their association with him, God must be very holy indeed. These laws also reinforced God’s authority over every aspect of their lives. He determined when they could come to the sanctuary, but also what they could eat and when they could have sexual intercourse. These laws also reminded Israel that it was this same God who had provided a way to be clean and thereby holy. Cleansing was costly and humbling, but it was possible, coming as a gracious gift from God.

Fourth, a very practical consequence of these laws was to keep the Israelites separate from their neighbors. Not only were the Israelites to avoid pagan practices (e.g., rituals associated with mourning the dead; Lev. 19:27), but also they were to limit social contact with their pagan neighbors. Laws governing what could be eaten and how those animals must be slaughtered would help see to that. God was concerned that his people not be corrupted by their neighbors (cf. Deut. 7:1–6; 14:1–3).

New Testament

Ceremonial cleansing appears in the opening chapters of the Gospels. Mary underwent the required purification rituals after Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:22–24), and Jesus “cleansed” people from leprosy, instructing them to carry out the Mosaic purification rituals (Matt. 8:2–4; Mark 1:40–42; Luke 5:12–14; 17:11–19; cf. Matt. 10:8; 11:5; Luke 4:27; 7:22).

In one of his confrontations with the Pharisees, Jesus signaled a departure from how these laws had been practiced. He announced, “Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them” (Mark 7:15), to which Mark adds an explanation: “In saying this, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’ ” (7:19). Peter’s rooftop vision in Acts 10 reflects this same perspective, as do the church’s decision regarding Gentile conversion (Acts 15) and Paul’s comments to the church at Rome (Rom. 14:14, 20–21).

The NT identifies the church as God’s holy people, called to be holy as he is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Holiness still required purity, now manifested more ethically than physically. That is, one became unclean through sinful actions such as lying (1 Thess. 2:3) and licentiousness (Eph. 4:19) rather than by, for example, contact with a corpse. In the OT, all Israel was declared holy but was to live out that holiness in daily life. Purity came through ritual actions such as sacrifice and washing, with the assistance of a priest. So it is in the NT, though the sacrifice is now the once-for-all offering of Christ on the cross (Heb. 9:13–14; 1 John 1:7) as applied in the waters of baptism (Eph. 5:26; 1 Pet. 3:21) and assisted by Jesus the great high priest and by the priesthood of believers (2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:14; James 4:8; 1 Pet. 1:22). Thus purified, believers can go on to live holy lives and become increasingly holy. Although the Testaments differ on the causes and solutions for uncleanness, they agree that a holy people has always been God’s goal, and that cleanness is a means to that end.

Imputation

The word “impute” means “to think of, regard, reckon, or credit something to someone that comes from another.” The language comes from the business world, where records are kept indicating credits and debits to a person’s account. This nontheological sense of imputation is found in Philem. 18–19, where Paul tells Philemon that if his slave Onesimus, who apparently had stolen from his master before running away, owes Philemon anything, “Charge it to me.” But the dominant use of imputation in the Bible is with reference to sin and righteousness.

Although imputation is most clearly taught in the NT, it is present in the OT as well. A prime example is the Day of Atonement ritual, in which Aaron lays his hands on the scapegoat and confesses the sins of the people before releasing it into the wilderness (Lev. 16:20–22). The act of laying his hands on the scapegoat imputes the sins of the people onto the goat.

In the NT, the clearest passages teaching imputation are found in Paul’s writings. Drawing upon Gen. 15:6 and Ps. 32:1–2, he asserts that God imputes righteousness to the believer apart from works (Rom. 4:1–8). Because of Adam’s rebellion, sin and guilt were imputed to all humankind, while at the same time Christ’s obedience is imputed to all his people (5:12–21). Paul summarizes the same idea elsewhere as follows: “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor. 5:21). The believer’s sin is credited to Jesus, while Jesus’ righteousness is credited to the believer. In the account ledgers that determine a person’s standing in God’s court of law, God transfers to the believer the complete obedient righteousness of Jesus while at the same time transferring to Jesus the sinful rebellion of the believer. Imputation even extends beyond righteousness: Jesus “has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption” (1 Cor. 1:30).

Imputation makes it clear that salvation is entirely the work of God. It is only on the basis of Christ’s righteousness that the believer can be justified in God’s court of law. Far from being an abstract theological concept, it is the very basis upon which the believer relates to God.

Impute

The word “impute” means “to think of, regard, reckon, or credit something to someone that comes from another.” The language comes from the business world, where records are kept indicating credits and debits to a person’s account. This nontheological sense of imputation is found in Philem. 18–19, where Paul tells Philemon that if his slave Onesimus, who apparently had stolen from his master before running away, owes Philemon anything, “Charge it to me.” But the dominant use of imputation in the Bible is with reference to sin and righteousness.

Although imputation is most clearly taught in the NT, it is present in the OT as well. A prime example is the Day of Atonement ritual, in which Aaron lays his hands on the scapegoat and confesses the sins of the people before releasing it into the wilderness (Lev. 16:20–22). The act of laying his hands on the scapegoat imputes the sins of the people onto the goat.

In the NT, the clearest passages teaching imputation are found in Paul’s writings. Drawing upon Gen. 15:6 and Ps. 32:1–2, he asserts that God imputes righteousness to the believer apart from works (Rom. 4:1–8). Because of Adam’s rebellion, sin and guilt were imputed to all humankind, while at the same time Christ’s obedience is imputed to all his people (5:12–21). Paul summarizes the same idea elsewhere as follows: “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor. 5:21). The believer’s sin is credited to Jesus, while Jesus’ righteousness is credited to the believer. In the account ledgers that determine a person’s standing in God’s court of law, God transfers to the believer the complete obedient righteousness of Jesus while at the same time transferring to Jesus the sinful rebellion of the believer. Imputation even extends beyond righteousness: Jesus “has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption” (1 Cor. 1:30).

Imputation makes it clear that salvation is entirely the work of God. It is only on the basis of Christ’s righteousness that the believer can be justified in God’s court of law. Far from being an abstract theological concept, it is the very basis upon which the believer relates to God.

Imrah

One of the sons of Zophah of the tribe of Asher (1 Chron. 7:36), he was a warrior and the head of a family (7:40).

Imri

(1) A descendant of Judah and the great-grandfather of Uthai, a man who settled in Jerusalem after the exile (1 Chron. 9:4). (2) The father of Zakkur, a man involved in the effort to rebuild the Jerusalem wall under the direction of Nehemiah (Neh. 3:2).

Incantations

Recitations of particular syllables and phrases within a ritual context formed a crucial part of magical sensibilities in an ancient framework. Documents outlining the procedures and speech necessary to cast a spell are extremely common among the cultures surrounding Israel and, later, the church. Many kinds of magic, and by implication incantations, are condemned in Mosaic law (Exod. 22:18; Deut. 18:10–11). The magicians of Egypt could imitate some of Moses’ miracles, but not all of them (e.g., Exod. 7:10–12, 20–22; 8:7). No doubt their “secret arts” involved incantations. It was a common belief in the ancient Near East that once the name of a deity was known, it could then be used in an incantation that would obligate the god or goddess to carry out the wishes of the magician. This is most likely the relevant context of the commandment not to misuse the divine name, or “take the name of the Lord thy God in vain” (Exod. 20:7 KJV). It is an insult to God to attempt to manipulate him by using his name in incantations in the way one would with a lesser deity.

Incarnation

The term “incarnation” refers to something being “enfleshed” (Lat., in carne). It should not be confused with, or even related to, the similar term “reincarnation,” nor does it parallel polytheistic myths about redeemer gods created by Hellenistic and gnostic cults. Rather, in the context of Christian teaching, “incarnation” expresses what happened when Jesus, who had been with God for all eternity, stepped onto the historical scene as a human being (John 1:14; Col. 1:19; Heb. 2:14; 1 John 1:1–2). The Greek NT uses en sarki (“in flesh”) repeatedly as a reference to Jesus’ human nature. Hymns such as 1 Tim. 3:16 show the confessional character of Christ’s incarnation, giving it strong theological significance (cf. the similar confessional emphasis of Phil. 2:5–11). The defining power of such confessions comes to the fore strongly in 1 John 4:3 (cf. 2 John 7), where John deems those who reject genuine incarnation to be filled with the spirit of the antichrist. Paul understands Jesus’ work on the cross in light of the incarnation (Col. 1:22; cf. 1 Pet. 4:1) and considers incarnation the reason Christ could accomplish what the law of Moses could not (Rom. 8:3; Eph. 2:15).

It follows that incarnation is central to Christian theology, an indispensable tenet that cannot be reduced to a parenthetical aside to the doctrine of the virgin birth. If anything, it is the other way around. More significant than the timing and specific circumstances surrounding Jesus’ birth, which are detailed only as introductions to Matthew’s and Luke’s Gospels, the incarnation speaks to the theological importance of what God did by sending his Son. Put differently, the significance of the incarnation cannot be overstated; not only is Jesus God’s perfect revelation of himself, but also the fact that he stepped into the field of matter, participating directly in the history of his own creation, has forever changed human thinking and the pursuit of knowledge.

Incarnation and Science

Athanasius, who safeguarded the incarnation of Christ by his claim that Jesus was not just born in the likeness of God but was also himself the very nature of God, saw that Christianity provided a new starting point for all human understanding of the world. This new starting point made the foundational dualism of classical rationalism impossible (sensible versus intelligible, material versus spiritual). The Christian claim of God’s actual incarnation in Christ required a complete reconsideration of the relationship between God and the world. Ultimate reality was no longer unknowable; God had expressed himself fully in the person of Jesus Christ.

From this, the fourth-century Cappadocian fathers developed four foundational principles that enabled new approaches to scientific pursuits. (1) Since the cosmos is the creation of a rational God who has also made humans in his image, it follows that the cosmos in principle is comprehensible by the human mind. (2) Since God created the cosmos as a free act of his will, and it is not simply an emanation of God, the cosmos has relative autonomy. That is, not everything that happens is the direct will of God. (3) Since God created the heavens and the earth, it follows that the “heavenly bodies” are not (as Aristotle claimed) made of a substance different from the elements that comprise the earth (interestingly, Galileo was condemned by an Aristotelian church for claiming that the moon is made of the same substance as the earth). (4) Because of the incarnation, humans may use material means for the advancement of human salvation. This allowed the church not to follow the Hebrew tradition of rejecting Greek medicine.

Incarnation and Christian Faith

The biblical emphasis on incarnation moves faith from the realm of mythology to the realm of history. In contrast to mythological affirmations, where gods play out scenarios in “the heavenlies” that have fatalistic consequences for life on earth, incarnation grounds the Christian faith in factual, historical events. God is not “out there in the unknown,” but rather chose to step into history and reveal himself in a personal manner. In mythology, talk about god turns into fatalistic assertions; in biblical faith, talk about God turns into expressions of relationship. The fullness of Christ’s incarnation protects Christian faith from turning into aloof speculations on the eternal; rather, incarnation secures the connection to the real-life issues of the human situation. More than merely sending a vision to a “prophet,” God came to show humans how to live, prioritize, act, react, and so on.

Incarnation and History

Since the incarnation anchors the Christian faith in historical reality, history itself becomes revelatory and significant for a full understanding of God. Christ came and walked among people “in time,” and Christian believers want to know what that meant and means. Different from gnostic writings, for example, where God merely sends lofty, indefinite, timeless propositions for inner meditation (cf. Gospel of Thomas), biblical faith recognizes God’s actions on the turf of human life and acts in response to these. Because God revealed himself on the field of human history, his actions can be tested and investigated. Because he chose to come at a certain time, in a certain place, Christians are interested in that time and place. God does not hide; he wills to reveal. Incarnation shields Christianity against gradually disappearing into the mix of pagan religions, where everyone can construct a god in his or her own image.

Furthermore, a proper emphasis on incarnation prevents the Christian faith from becoming indifferent to the present world. Incarnation teaches that God desires to engage his creation. He sent his Son into the world to reveal to all humans what life in God’s kingdom looks like. God’s eager participation in human life through the birth of Jesus, as announced to a group of humble shepherds near the town of Bethlehem, generates a charge for the faithful to be involved in the transformation of this world. The incarnation calls followers of Jesus to live lives that actively proclaim that God’s love is participatory love (Heb. 2:18; 4:15).

Incarnation and God’s Being

At the heart of the biblical teaching about incarnation stands a statement about the very being of Christ. The story of the overshadowing of Mary by the Holy Spirit, causing her to give birth to “the Son of the Most High,” negates any notion that Jesus was merely an extraordinarily godly person, or prophet, whom God adopted. Rather, he was concurrently 100 percent God and 100 percent human—not “just” human, not “just” God, nor 50 percent of each.

The two natures of Christ present a rational difficulty for finite minds. In terms of function, one way to think about this may be to consider everything that Jesus said, did, and thought as an expression of who God is. Or one may assert that everything Jesus said, did, and thought was exactly what God would have said, done, and thought. The struggle of both language and comprehension at this point is to find ways of expressing how duality of form and function can concur with equality of being. Everything about Jesus is an exact expression of God, yet Jesus is not the Father.

The struggle to understand the meaning and significance of the incarnation has changed over time. Opposite the early Christians, who knew Jesus as a human being and therefore struggled to comprehend his divinity, modern Christians struggle with the significance of Jesus’ humanity. Since Jesus is the object of Christian worship and the content of hymns and praise choruses, his divinity receives most of the focus. This endangers the delicate balance, or tension, revealed in the biblical teaching on incarnation. Jesus must be 100 percent God to be the true Savior, not just someone who can point to a saving God. Concurrently he must be 100 percent human to be fully acquainted with human experience and misery.

Incarnation and the Birth of Jesus: Preexistence and Historical Existence

The NT describes the process, or method, of the incarnation as virginal conception. God’s Spirit overshadowed a young Jewish virgin, Mary, who then gave birth to Jesus. Although incarnation itself does not require such a method (God could have chosen a different method to bring Jesus to earth, as with the first Adam), Matthew’s and Luke’s accounts powerfully portray how God connected eternity to history.

Christ’s eternal nature is attested throughout the NT and belongs indisputably to the very core of Christian theology and understanding. John’s Gospel portrays this robustly through his delineation of Jesus’ existence before his historical birth in Bethlehem (John 1:1–14). Given this, it proves difficult to imagine a more “natural” link between Christ’s preexistence and his historical existence than we find in Matthew’s and Luke’s accounts. The virginal conception joins the preexistent (eternal) nature of Christ to his historical (temporal) existence in a way that preserves both natures as coexistent. Without the virginal conception, there must have been a point of adoption, a specific historical time, or situation, where Jesus became “Son of God.” The problem with any adoption theory is that it ultimately makes Jesus 100 percent human and 0 percent God. Adoption does not change being. The Gospel accounts of incarnation elucidate Jesus’ being. He is not just like God in what he does; he is 100 percent like God in who he is.

Incense

A compound of aromatic spices closely related to the daily life of Israel. It became synonymous with “frankincense” at a later time. Aromatic spices were used in Israel for cosmetics (Prov. 7:17; Song 5:5) and for medical (Jer. 8:22; 46:11; 51:8) purposes but occupied a special place in Israelite worship when used as incense. Incense was professionally compounded (Exod. 30:34–35) and was offered on the golden altar by the high priest twice a day (Exod. 30:7–8; cf. Luke 1:8–11) and on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:12–13; cf. 10:1–2). As the incense burned, its sweet fragrance filled the sanctuary, forming an atmospheric curtain to protect the sanctuary and to characterize it as God’s private domain (Isa. 6:4). Prayers offered with the smoke of the incense guaranteed acceptance by God (Deut. 33:10; cf. Gen. 8:21; Exod. 29:18; Ezek. 20:41). In Ps. 141:2, prayers are said to ascend to God like incense, providing a background to the book of Revelation, where incense represents the prayers of the saints (Rev. 5:8; 8:3–4).

Incense Altar

Altars were places of sacrifice and worship constructed of various materials. They could be either temporary or permanent. Some altars were in the open air; others were set apart in a holy place. They could symbolize either God’s presense and protection or false worship that would lead to God’s judgment.

Old Testament

Noah and the patriarchs. The first reference in the Bible is to an altar built by Noah after the flood (Gen. 8:20). This action suggests the sanctuary character of the mountain on which the ark landed, so that theologically the ark’s resting place was a (partial) return to Eden. The purpose of the extra clean animals loaded onto the ark was revealed (cf. 7:2–3). They were offered up as “burnt offerings,” symbolizing self-dedication to God at this point of new beginning for the human race.

Abram built altars “to the Lord” at places where God appeared and spoke to him (Gen. 12:7) and where he encamped (12:8; 13:3–4, 18). No sacrifice is explicitly mentioned in association with these altars. Thus, they may have had the character of monuments or memorials of significant events. In association with Abram’s altars, he is said to have “called on the name of the Lord” (12:8)—that is, to pray. The elaborate cultic procedures associated with later Israelite altars (e.g., the mediation of priests) were absent in the patriarchal period. Succeeding generations followed the same practices: Isaac (26:25) and Jacob (33:20; 34:1, 3, 7). God’s test of Abraham involved the demand that he sacrifice his son Isaac as a burnt offering. In obedience, Abraham built an altar for this purpose, but through God’s intervention a reprieve was granted, and a ram was substituted (22:9, 13). Moses erected an altar after the defeat of Amalek at Rephidim, to commemorate this God-given victory (Exod. 17:15–16).

Moses and the tabernacle. In the context of making the covenant with Israel at Sinai, God gave Moses instructions on how to construct an altar (Exod. 20:24–26; cf. Josh. 8:31). It could be “an altar of earth” (of sun-dried mud-brick construction?) or else made of loose natural stones. The Israelites were expressly forbidden to use hewn stones, perhaps for fear of an idolatrous image being carved (making this prohibition an application of Exod. 20:4; cf. Deut. 27:5–6). Even if the altar was large, it was not to be supplied with steps for the priest to ascend, lest his nakedness be shown to God. The requirement that priests wear undergarments reflects the same concern (Exod. 28:42–43). An altar made of twelve stones, the number representing the number of the tribes of Israel, was built by Moses for the covenant-making ceremony (Exod. 24:4), in which half the blood of the sacrifice was sprinkled on the altar (representing God?) and the other half on the people, the action symbolizing the covenant bond created (24:6–8).

For the tabernacle, a portable “altar of burnt offering” was made (Exod. 27:1–8; 38:1–7). It had wooden frames sheathed in bronze and featured a horn at each corner. There was a ledge around the altar halfway up its sides, from which was hung bronze grating, and it had four bronze rings into which poles were slipped for transport. As part of the cultic ritual, blood was smeared on the horns (29:12). This altar stood in the open air in the courtyard of the tabernacle, near the entrance to the tabernacle. Included among the tabernacle furnishings was a smaller “altar of incense,” with molding around the top rim (30:1–10; 37:25–28). This altar was, however, overlaid with gold, for it stood closer to God’s ritual presence, inside the tabernacle, “in front of the curtain that shields the Ark of the Covenant law,” the curtain that separated the most holy place from the holy place. The high priest placed fragrant incense on this altar every morning and evening. The fact that this was a daily procedure and the description of the positioning of the tabernacle furnishings in Exod. 40:26–28 (mentioning the altar of incense after speaking about the lampstand) might be taken as implying that the incense altar was in the holy place, but 1 Kings 6:22 and Heb. 9:4 suggest that it was actually in the most holy place, near the ark.

God, through Moses, instructed the people that on entering the Promised Land they were to destroy all Canaanite altars along with the other paraphernalia of their pagan worship (Deut. 7:5; 12:3). Bronze Age altars discovered at Megiddo include horned limestone incense altars and a large circular altar mounted by a flight of steps. In Josh. 22 the crisis caused by the building of “an imposing altar” by the Transjordanian tribes was averted when these tribes explained to the rest of the Israelites that it was intended as a replica of the altar outside the tabernacle and not for the offering of sacrifices. The worship of all Israel at the one sanctuary both expressed and protected the religious unity and purity of the nation at this vital early stage of occupation of the land. In later narratives, however, Gideon (Judg. 6), Samuel (1 Sam. 7:17), Saul (1 Sam. 14:35), and David (2 Sam. 24) are said to build altars for sacrifice and to have done so with impunity, and in fact with the apparent approval of the biblical author. The established custom of seeking sanctuary from threat of death in the nation’s shrine is reflected in 1 Kings 1:50–53; 2:28–35, where Adonijah and Joab are described as “clinging to the horns of the altar.”

Solomon’s temple and rival worship centers. In the temple built by Solomon, the altar of incense that belonged to the “inner sanctuary” was overlaid with gold (1 Kings 6:20, 22). Solomon’s prayer at the dedication of the temple was made before the bronze altar in the courtyard (1 Kings 8:22, 54). The altar for sacrifices was much larger than the one that had been in the tabernacle (1 Chron. 4:1 gives its dimensions).

Although many of the psalms may originally have been used in worship in the first temple, there are surprisingly few references to the altar in the Psalter (only Pss. 26:6; 43:4; 51:19; 84:3; 118:27). They express the psalmist’s devotion to God and the temple as the place where God’s presence is enjoyed as the highest blessing.

After the division of the kingdom, Jeroboam offered sacrifices at the rival altar that he set up in Bethel (1 Kings 12:32–33). An unnamed “man of God” (= prophet) predicted Josiah’s desecration of this altar, which lay many years in the future (1 Kings 13:1–5). Amos and Hosea, who prophesied in the northern kingdom of the eighth century BC, condemned this and the other altars in that kingdom (e.g., Amos 3:14; Hos. 8:11–13). Ahab set up an altar to Baal in Samaria (1 Kings 16:32), and the suppression of Yahwism by Jezebel included the throwing down of the Lord’s altars in Israel (19:10, 14). The competition on Mount Carmel between Elijah and the prophets of Baal involved rival altars (1 Kings 18), and Elijah’s twelve-stone altar recalls that of Exod. 24, for he was calling the nation back to the exclusive monotheism preached by Moses (1 Kings 18:30–32).

With regard to the southern kingdom, the spiritual declension in the time of Ahaz manifested itself in this king making an altar modeled on the Assyrian prototype that he had seen on a visit to Damascus (2 Kings 16:10–14). He shifted the Lord’s altar from in front of the temple, where it had previously stood. Godly Hezekiah’s religious reform included the removal of the altars at the high places that up to that time had been centers of deviant worship (2 Kings 18:4, 22). The apostasy of King Manasseh showed itself in his rebuilding the high places that Hezekiah his father had destroyed and in erecting altars to Baal (2 Kings 21), thus repeating the sin of Ahab (cf. 1 Kings 16:32). Josiah’s reform included the destruction of all altars outside Jerusalem (2 Kings 23) and the centralizing of worship in the Jerusalem temple.

In Ezekiel’s vision of the new temple of the future, the sacrificial altar is its centerpiece (Ezek. 43:13–17). The altar was to be a large structure, with three-stepped stages and a horn on each corner, and it was to be fitted with steps on its eastern side for the use of the priests.

The second temple. The Israelites’ return from Babylonian exile was with the express aim of rebuilding the temple. The first thing that the priests did was to build “the altar on its foundation” (i.e., its original base; Ezra 3:2–3). The returnees placed the altar on the precise spot that it had occupied before the Babylonians destroyed it along with the temple. They took such care because they wanted to ensure that God would accept their sacrifices and so grant them protection. At the very end of the OT period, the prophet Malachi condemned the insincerity of Israel’s worship that was manifested in substandard sacrifices being offered on God’s altar (Mal. 1:7, 10; 2:13).

New Testament

In the NT, the altar is mentioned in a number of Jesus’ sayings (e.g., Matt. 5:23–24; 23:18–20). In the theology of the book of Hebrews, which teaches about the priesthood of Jesus Christ (in the order of Melchizedek), the role of the priest is defined as one who “serve[s] at the altar” (7:13), and Christ’s altar (and that of Christ’s followers) is the cross on which he offered himself as a sacrifice for sin (13:10). Another argument of Hebrews is that since on the most important day in the Jewish ritual calendar (the Day of Atonement), the flesh of the sacrifice was not eaten (see Lev. 16:27), the eating of Jewish ceremonial foods is not required, nor is it of any spiritual value. The altar in the heavenly sanctuary is mentioned a number of times in the book of Revelation (6:9; 8:3, 5; 9:13; 11:1; 14:18; 16:7). It is most likely the altar of incense and is related to the prayers of God’s persecuted people, which are answered by the judgments of God upon the people of the earth.

Incest

Incest can be defined as sexual intercourse or sexual contact between close relatives that is considered by society to be illegal, immoral, or socially taboo. The Bible has no term analogous to the English word “incest.” Instead, the OT uses numerous verbal idioms to denote defilement, such as “perversion” (Lev. 20:12) or “wickedness” (18:17; 20:14). What emerges is a catalog of forbidden pairings (Lev. 18:6–18; 20:11–12, 17, 19; Deut. 22:30; 27:20, 22–23; Ezek. 22:10–11), not unlike the ancient Hittite laws or the Code of Hammurabi.

The strongest prohibitions against incest are in Lev. 18; 20; Deut. 27. What Israelite society could not control, God oversaw. In Lev. 18:16–23 the entire unit moves gradually from incestuous unions to other illicit expressions. The consequences of incest are, according to OT legislation in Leviticus, the defilement of the land itself (18:24–30), death (20:11–12), childlessness (20:21), and banishment from the covenant community (20:17; cf. Matt. 18:15–18; 1 Cor. 5:2, 5, 13).

OT narratives, however, often describe the fallout from incestuous unions: father and daughters (Lot and his daughters [Gen. 19:30–35]), older brother and sister (Amnon and Tamar [2 Sam. 13:14–15]), son and father’s wives (Absalom and David’s concubines [Gen. 35:22; 2 Sam. 16:22]), father-in-law with daughter-in-law (Judah and Tamar [Gen. 38:15]). The sole NT reference is in 1 Cor. 5:1–5, a son engaging in sexual relations with his stepmother, which Paul calls porneia (KJV: “fornication”; NIV: “sexual immorality”). This man’s actions also violated Roman law (Gaius, Inst. 1.63).

In contemporary times, the most common type of incest is between father and daughter. Such sexual activity between an adult and a prepubescent or adolescent inflicts some of the most extreme trauma and long-term psychological damage. Modern notions of “consent,” vis-à-vis adult and adolescent, do not avoid various forms of damage to the child. Sibling incest is most prevalent in families where one or both parents are largely absent or emotionally unavailable. Incest perpetrated by an adult against a child is called “intrafamilial child sexual abuse.”

Nine characteristics of incestuous families have been identified: (1) shame, (2) abuse of power, (3) distorted communication, (4) social isolation, (5) denial, (6) lack of intimacy, (7) blurred boundaries, (8) dependency/emotional neediness, (9) and lack of forgiveness. According to the Mayo Clinic, approximately 95 percent of child sexual abuse cases are committed by 88 percent of child offenders who meet the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia.

Incest by a parent, the guardian figure in particular, may be the most profound illustration of malicious leadership. Incest comprises the vast majority of child sexual abuse (80 percent). Creation intended a conferred authority for a dependent’s growth, but incestuous acts within a family epitomize the corruption of social order through control, perversion, and unpredictability.

Incest far exceeds Paul’s injunction that fathers not “exasperate” their children (Eph. 6:4). A child victim of incest begins to wonder if the abusing father, mother, or older sibling is guardian or lover. Incest further counters the creation design because a child cannot give or receive as an equal. A son or a daughter represents the union of mother and father; as such, children are not sufficiently “other” to be an object of sexual love. Thus, incest destroys family ties because it disregards created boundaries.

The fundamental damage caused by incest stems from the child’s developing capacities for trust, intimacy, agency, and sexuality. Many adult mental health problems are second-order effects, tied to the person’s history of sexual abuse, incest or otherwise. In the United States alone, estimates point to about twenty million persons victimized by parental incest as children.

Inclusive

The incorporation or integration of multiple and diverse groups into one. God promised that all peoples would be blessed in Abraham and his descendants (Gen. 12:3; 22:18; cf. Gal. 3:8). Israel, as the recipient of God’s blessing, was to be a light to the nations (Isa. 49:6), a kingdom of priests mediating God’s presence to the surrounding peoples (Exod. 19:6; Ps. 67:1–2). The prophets anticipated a glorious day when the nations would flow into God’s house and his word would go out from Jerusalem to the nations (Isa. 2:1–5). In Christ, Gentiles have been included in the “Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16), and Paul longed for the fullness (ESV: “full inclusion”) of the Jewish people through faith (Rom. 11:12–17). Ultimately, people from every tribe, language, people, and nation will together worship Christ forever (Rev. 5:9).

Jesus embodied the inclusive nature of the kingdom of God in his practice of table fellowship with the socially marginalized or despised (Luke 15:2). His ministry included women, Samaritans, and Gentiles (Luke 8:2–3; John 4:40; 12:20). Christ commissioned his Jewish followers to make disciples of all nations (Matt. 28:19), in fulfillment of OT expectation (Luke 24:47). In the church, differences in ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status continue, but believers are called to a profound unity amid diversity because of the work of Christ (Gal. 3:26–28) and the gift of the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:11).

Gender inclusiveness is an important consideration for modern Bible translations. It concerns the question of whether to use language that is not gender specific instead of masculine language when the context calls for it (e.g., “people” rather than “men,” and “brothers and sisters” rather than “brothers”). Some versions (e.g., TNIV, NRSV, NET, NLT, REB) prefer gender-inclusive language, while others (e.g., NASB, ESV, NKJV) do not.

Inclusiveness

The incorporation or integration of multiple and diverse groups into one. God promised that all peoples would be blessed in Abraham and his descendants (Gen. 12:3; 22:18; cf. Gal. 3:8). Israel, as the recipient of God’s blessing, was to be a light to the nations (Isa. 49:6), a kingdom of priests mediating God’s presence to the surrounding peoples (Exod. 19:6; Ps. 67:1–2). The prophets anticipated a glorious day when the nations would flow into God’s house and his word would go out from Jerusalem to the nations (Isa. 2:1–5). In Christ, Gentiles have been included in the “Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16), and Paul longed for the fullness (ESV: “full inclusion”) of the Jewish people through faith (Rom. 11:12–17). Ultimately, people from every tribe, language, people, and nation will together worship Christ forever (Rev. 5:9).

Jesus embodied the inclusive nature of the kingdom of God in his practice of table fellowship with the socially marginalized or despised (Luke 15:2). His ministry included women, Samaritans, and Gentiles (Luke 8:2–3; John 4:40; 12:20). Christ commissioned his Jewish followers to make disciples of all nations (Matt. 28:19), in fulfillment of OT expectation (Luke 24:47). In the church, differences in ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status continue, but believers are called to a profound unity amid diversity because of the work of Christ (Gal. 3:26–28) and the gift of the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:11).

Gender inclusiveness is an important consideration for modern Bible translations. It concerns the question of whether to use language that is not gender specific instead of masculine language when the context calls for it (e.g., “people” rather than “men,” and “brothers and sisters” rather than “brothers”). Some versions (e.g., TNIV, NRSV, NET, NLT, REB) prefer gender-inclusive language, while others (e.g., NASB, ESV, NKJV) do not.

Inclusivity

The incorporation or integration of multiple and diverse groups into one. God promised that all peoples would be blessed in Abraham and his descendants (Gen. 12:3; 22:18; cf. Gal. 3:8). Israel, as the recipient of God’s blessing, was to be a light to the nations (Isa. 49:6), a kingdom of priests mediating God’s presence to the surrounding peoples (Exod. 19:6; Ps. 67:1–2). The prophets anticipated a glorious day when the nations would flow into God’s house and his word would go out from Jerusalem to the nations (Isa. 2:1–5). In Christ, Gentiles have been included in the “Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16), and Paul longed for the fullness (ESV: “full inclusion”) of the Jewish people through faith (Rom. 11:12–17). Ultimately, people from every tribe, language, people, and nation will together worship Christ forever (Rev. 5:9).

Jesus embodied the inclusive nature of the kingdom of God in his practice of table fellowship with the socially marginalized or despised (Luke 15:2). His ministry included women, Samaritans, and Gentiles (Luke 8:2–3; John 4:40; 12:20). Christ commissioned his Jewish followers to make disciples of all nations (Matt. 28:19), in fulfillment of OT expectation (Luke 24:47). In the church, differences in ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status continue, but believers are called to a profound unity amid diversity because of the work of Christ (Gal. 3:26–28) and the gift of the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:11).

Gender inclusiveness is an important consideration for modern Bible translations. It concerns the question of whether to use language that is not gender specific instead of masculine language when the context calls for it (e.g., “people” rather than “men,” and “brothers and sisters” rather than “brothers”). Some versions (e.g., TNIV, NRSV, NET, NLT, REB) prefer gender-inclusive language, while others (e.g., NASB, ESV, NKJV) do not.

Incontinency

Paul twice refers to incontinency (KJV), or a lack of self-control (NIV), in lists of vices (1 Cor. 7:5; 2 Tim. 3:3). The opposite of incontinency, self-control, is a “fruit of the Spirit” (Gal. 5:23) and is commended in 2 Pet. 1:6 (cf. 2 Tim. 1:7).

Incorruptible

The property or state of not being subject to decay or deterioration, and thus heavenly. “Imperishability” (Gk. aphtharsia) and immortality are closely linked; note that the Greek adjective for “imperishable,” aphthartos, can be translated “immortal” (e.g., Rom. 1:23). Often the Bible contrasts the imperishable with the perishable. Thus, Paul contrasts the perishable earthly body with the imperishable resurrection body (1 Cor. 15:42, 50–55) and an imperishable reward with a perishable reward (1 Cor. 9:25 NRSV, NET). Peter explains that the believer’s new birth is “not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God” (1 Pet. 1:23).

Incorruption

The property or state of not being subject to decay or deterioration, and thus heavenly. “Imperishability” (Gk. aphtharsia) and immortality are closely linked; note that the Greek adjective for “imperishable,” aphthartos, can be translated “immortal” (e.g., Rom. 1:23). Often the Bible contrasts the imperishable with the perishable. Thus, Paul contrasts the perishable earthly body with the imperishable resurrection body (1 Cor. 15:42, 50–55) and an imperishable reward with a perishable reward (1 Cor. 9:25 NRSV, NET). Peter explains that the believer’s new birth is “not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God” (1 Pet. 1:23).

Increase

In the OT, increase at times refers to a harvest’s yield (Ps. 67:7) but more commonly to numerical growth. In Gen. 1 God’s creation blessing is expressed in the imperative “be fruitful and increase in number” (1:22, 28). Even after the fall in Genesis, God reiterated his intention to bless and increase Noah (9:1, 7), Abraham (17:2), Ishmael (17:20), Isaac (26:24), and Jacob (35:11). This blessing was fulfilled initially when Israel increased greatly in Egypt (47:27).

Moses stressed God’s intention to further increase his people if they would obey God (Deut. 6:3; 8:1), and he warned that disobedience would bring about ruin and destruction (28:63). According to Hosea, when Israel prospered, it increased in sin and idolatry (Hos. 4:7; 10:1). Yet God restated his intention to increase the remnant of his people following exile (Jer. 23:3; Ezek. 37:26).

The NT records prayer for increased faith (Luke 17:5) and love (1 Thess. 3:12) and stresses the increase of God’s grace (Rom. 5:20) and the advancement of the word of God (Acts 6:7; 12:24).

Independence of God

In the beginning, God created everything (Gen. 1). Thus, all things depend on him for their existence, but he does not (and cannot) depend on anything else. Theologians refer to this doctrine as God’s independence, self-existence, or aseity.

India

The northwestern region of the subcontinent of southern Asia. India marked the eastern boundary of Ahasuerus’s territory (Esther 1:1; 8:9), but it was connected to the biblical world primarily through trade. The Seleucids employed “Indian drivers” on elephants (1 Macc. 6:37). Nard, the fragrant oil that Mary pours over Jesus’ feet, is derived from a root that grows in the mountains of northern India (John 12:3; cf. Song 1:12; 4:13; Mark 14:3).

Infant Baptism

Infant baptism, or paedobaptism, is the practice of administering baptism to children before they are capable of requesting or even acknowledging it. According to paedobaptists, the child becomes a member of God’s family through this act of his or her parents. Around the age of twelve years, the child will be requested to confirm acceptance of the earlier baptism. Churches following this tradition do not refer to it as “infant baptism,” but rather consider it part of normal baptism.

Those churches affirming infant baptism find the practice in the NT. There are several reports of a household or other unspecified group being baptized (Acts 2:38; 16:15, 33; 18:8; 1 Cor. 1:16; cf. 1 Cor. 10:2). These groups presumably included children, who were then considered part of the church.

The apostle Paul seems to relate Christian baptism to Jewish circumcision (Col. 2:11–12), the entrance ritual to inclusion in the OT covenant (Gen. 17:10–14). Infant boys were circumcised on the eighth day after birth as a sign of the continuing relationship between God and Israel. Having one’s children (and any slaves in the household) circumcised was a demonstration of obedience by the head of the household; an adult who was not circumcised was disobedient (Gen. 17:14).

Baptizing infants functions in a similar way. The child’s parents announce their own association with the body of Christ and their desire that the child be considered a member as well. This baptism, as with adults, does not convey salvation but does convey a type of grace. Entering early adulthood, the child will be given a chance to make an affirmation of faith through confirmation. Although the child will have no memory of the baptism, he or she will grow from infancy aware of having been entered conditionally into the church through the act initiated by the parents. Thus, infant baptism is an act of faith by the parents that the child must claim later.

According to this perspective, a person baptized as an infant has no need for baptism later in life. He or she is already a member of the universal church; subsequent baptism would be of no effect, and the request for baptism likely would be refused by the church. See also Baptism.

Infant Salvation

The Bible says that on judgment day, God will evaluate the deeds done during our lifetime (2 Cor. 5:10; Rev. 20:12). God saves us by grace alone, through faith alone, because of what Christ alone has done; nevertheless, our works serve as the evidence or “fruit” of regeneration (Matt. 7:15–27). Works also become God’s standard when the lost are condemned in his heavenly court, since he “will repay each person according to what they have done” and each person has, in fact, sinned (Rom. 2:6; 3:23). But what will God do with young children and the mentally challenged, neither of whom can understand God’s moral law well enough to sin against it or obey it consciously? How will God treat people who could never understand the gospel no matter how clearly an evangelist presents it? The received answer to this question appeals to the idea that we must reach an “age of accountability” before God holds us responsible for our own deeds, and that this age varies with the individual person. But does Scripture endorse this idea?

The parents of miscarried children and those whose children have died at an early age have the greatest emotional stake in the answer to this question. They want to hear that they will see their children again; and the position taken here is that they will, though for a different reason than the one commonly given. Specifically, we must not say that the innocence of these children qualifies them for heaven, because Adam’s corruption affects us all (Rom. 5:12; cf. Pss. 51:5; 58:3). Their inherited depravity could not show itself in overt sins, at least not at a very early age, but Scripture implies that they suffer from it nonetheless. Consequently, as with every case of salvation, the future of children and the mentally handicapped is decided on the basis of God’s grace. They are guilty and stand in need of the cross, as we all do. But would God apply the work of Christ to them by the Spirit before they can function as moral agents and respond consciously to the gospel? A circumstantial case can be made for answering in the affirmative to this question, with this caveat: the argument given applies only to these special cases. It does not encourage the view that unreached sinners are essentially infants in God’s sight and thus justified by similar arrangements.

We begin by noting that God claims some people for his own purposes, even in infancy. He does so in John the Baptist’s case, filling him with the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb (Luke 1:15). David and Jeremiah also see God’s hand upon them from their earliest days (Ps. 22:10; Jer. 1:5), as does the apostle Paul (Gal. 1:15). At a minimum, these texts show us that God can and, in some cases, has dealt with human beings before they could ever respond consciously to him. David also expects to be personally reunited with his deceased son, saying, “I will go to him, but he will not return to me” (2 Sam. 12:23). A final clue is the response of Jesus to children during the days of his earthly life. He rebukes his disciples for keeping children away from him, saying that God’s kingdom belongs to “such as these” (Matt. 19:14; Mark 10:14; cf. Matt. 18:3). Of course, these episodes are included mainly to show adults what discipleship means, with special reference to humility and self-forgetfulness. In following Jesus, we must care no more for our social status and dignity than young children typically do. Yet one would not do well to argue that Jesus welcomes children into his company merely for illustrative purposes, as if they mean no more to him than handy visual aids. The disciples place children low on their Lord’s list of ministry priorities, and Jesus raises them all the way up. Our answer to this question must be an educated guess, but the safest conclusion seems to be that while children still need the cross, they receive its benefits consistently by other means and thus go to heaven when they die.

Infinite

The quality of having no bounds or restraints. The theological and biblical concept of the infinite is of practical importance rather than being merely an abstract statement. “God is infinite” speaks of God’s omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence, not of a numerical conception of God’s size. Although the word “infinite” does not occur in the NIV, the concept of an infinite God is undisputed. Psalm 147:5 refers to God’s knowledge as having “no limit,” as does Heb. 4:13. Additionally, biblical writers sometimes exaggerate and describe large numbers or quantities as infinite for dramatic effect (e.g., “endless sins” [Job 22:5]).

Infirm

Referring to sickness or weakness, the word “infirmity” occurs most often in the KJV. The term appears far more frequently in the NT than in the OT. In the Gospels, the sense of physical sickness is arguably always in view (e.g., Matt. 8:17; Luke 5:15; 8:2; 13:11–12; John 5:5), but in the Epistles, where “infirmity” occurs rarely outside the KJV, the idea of weakness is most common (e.g., Rom. 6:19; 8:26; 2 Cor. 11:30; Heb. 4:15).

Infirmity

Referring to sickness or weakness, the word “infirmity” occurs most often in the KJV. The term appears far more frequently in the NT than in the OT. In the Gospels, the sense of physical sickness is arguably always in view (e.g., Matt. 8:17; Luke 5:15; 8:2; 13:11–12; John 5:5), but in the Epistles, where “infirmity” occurs rarely outside the KJV, the idea of weakness is most common (e.g., Rom. 6:19; 8:26; 2 Cor. 11:30; Heb. 4:15).

Inflammation

One of several physical ailments that would come upon the Israelites as a curse for disobedience to the covenant (Deut. 28:22 [Heb. dalleqet]). The KJV also uses the term in Lev. 13:28 to translate a different Hebrew word (tsarebet) that most modern versions render as “scar.”

Inherit

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).

Inheritance

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).

Iniquity

There are few subjects more prominent in the Bible than sin; hardly a page can be found where sin is not mentioned, described, or portrayed. As the survey that follows demonstrates, sin is one of the driving forces of the entire Bible.

Sin in the Bible

Old Testament. Sin enters the biblical story in Gen. 3. Despite God’s commandment to the contrary (2:16–17), Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil at the prompting of the serpent. When Adam joined Eve in eating the fruit, their rebellion was complete. They attempted to cover their guilt and shame, but the fig leaves were inadequate. God confronted them and was unimpressed with their attempts to shift the blame. Judgment fell heavily on the serpent, Eve, and Adam; even creation itself was affected (3:17–18).

In the midst of judgment, God made it clear in two specific ways that sin did not have the last word. First, God cryptically promised to put hostility between the offspring of the serpent and that of the woman (Gen. 3:15). Although the serpent would inflict a severe blow upon the offspring of the woman, the offspring of the woman would defeat the serpent. Second, God replaced the inadequate covering of the fig leaves with animal skins (3:21). The implication is that the death of the animal functioned as a substitute for Adam and Eve, covering their sin.

In Gen. 4–11 the disastrous effects of sin and death are on full display. Not even the cataclysmic judgment of the flood was able to eradicate the wickedness of the human heart (6:5; 8:21). Humans gathered in rebellion at the tower of Babel in an effort to make a name for themselves and thwart God’s intention for them to scatter across the earth (11:1–9).

In one sense, the rest of the OT hangs on this question: How will a holy God satisfy his wrath against human sin and restore his relationship with human beings without compromising his justice? The short answer is: through Abraham and his offspring (Gen. 12:1–3), who eventually multiplied into the nation of Israel. After God redeemed them from their slavery in Egypt (Exod. 1–15), he brought them to Sinai to make a covenant with them that was predicated on obedience (19:5–6). A central component of this covenant was the sacrificial system (e.g., Lev. 1–7), which God provided as a means of dealing with sin. In addition to the regular sacrifices made for sin throughout the year, God set apart one day a year to atone for Israel’s sins (Lev. 16). On this Day of Atonement the high priest took the blood of a goat into the holy of holies and sprinkled it on the mercy seat as a sin offering. Afterward he took a second goat and confessed “all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and sending it away into the wilderness. . . . The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a barren region; and the goat shall be set free in the wilderness” (Lev. 16:21–22 NRSV). In order for the holy God to dwell with sinful people, extensive provisions had to be made to enable fellowship.

Despite these provisions, Israel repeatedly and persistently broke its covenant with God. Even at the highest points of prosperity under the reign of David and his son Solomon, sin plagued God’s people, including the kings themselves. David committed adultery and murder (2 Sam. 11:1–27). Solomon had hundreds of foreign wives and concubines, who turned his heart away from Yahweh to other gods (1 Kings 11:1–8). Once the nation split into two (Israel and Judah), sin and its consequences accelerated. Idolatry became rampant. The result was exile from the land (Israel in 722 BC, Judah in 586 BC). But God refused to give up on his people. He promised to raise up a servant who would suffer for the sins of his people as a guilt offering (Isa. 52:13–53:12).

After God’s people returned from exile, hopes remained high that the great prophetic promises, including the final remission of sins, were at hand. But disillusionment quickly set in as the returnees remained under foreign oppression, the rebuilt temple was but a shell of Solomon’s, and a Davidic king was nowhere to be found. Before long, God’s people were back to their old ways, turning away from him. Even the priests, who were charged with the administration of the sacrificial system dealing with the sin of the people, failed to properly carry out their duties (Mal. 1:6–2:9).

New Testament. During the next four hundred years of prophetic silence, the longing for God to finally put away the sins of his people grew. At last, when the conception and birth of Jesus were announced, it was revealed that he would “save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). In the days before the public ministry of Jesus, John the Baptist prepared the way for him by “preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Luke 3:3). Whereas both Adam and Israel were disobedient sons of God, Jesus proved to be the obedient Son by his faithfulness to God in the face of temptation (Matt. 2:13–15; 4:1–11; 26:36–46; Luke 3:23–4:13; Rom. 5:12–21; Phil. 2:8; Heb. 5:8–10). He was also the Suffering Servant who gave his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45; cf. Isa. 52:13–53:12). On the cross Jesus experienced the wrath of God that God’s people rightly deserved for their sin. With his justice fully satisfied, God was free to forgive and justify all who are identified with Christ by faith (Rom. 3:21–26). What neither the law nor the blood of bulls and goats could do, Jesus Christ did with his own blood (Rom. 8:3–4; Heb. 9:1–10:18).

After his resurrection and ascension, Jesus’ followers began proclaiming the “good news” (gospel) of what Jesus did and calling to people, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins” (Acts 2:38). As people began to experience God’s forgiveness, they were so transformed that they forgave those who sinned against them (Matt. 6:12; 18:15–20; Col. 3:13). Although believers continue to struggle with sin in this life (Rom. 8:12–13; Gal. 5:16–25), sin is no longer master over them (Rom. 6:1–23). The Holy Spirit empowers them to fight sin as they long for the new heaven and earth, where there will be no sin, no death, and no curse (Rom. 8:12–30; Rev. 21–22).

As even this very brief survey of the biblical story line from Genesis to Revelation shows, sin is a fundamental aspect of the Bible’s plot. Sin generates the conflict that drives the biblical narrative; it is the fundamental “problem” that must be solved in order for God’s purposes in creation to be completed.

Definition and Terminology

Definition of sin. Although no definition can capture completely the breadth and depth of the concept of sin, it seems best to regard sin as a failure to conform to God’s law in thought, feeling, attitude, word, action, orientation, or nature. In this definition it must be remembered that God’s law is an expression of his perfect and holy character, so sin is not merely the violation of an impersonal law but rather is a personal offense against the Creator. Sin cannot be limited to actions. Desires (Exod. 20:17; Matt. 5:27–30), emotions (Gen. 4:6–7; Matt. 5:21–26), and even our fallen nature as human beings (Ps. 51:5; Eph. 2:1–3) can be sinful as well.

Terminology. The Bible uses dozens of terms to speak of sin. Neatly classifying them is not easy, as there is significant overlap in the meaning and use of the various terms. Nonetheless, many of the terms fit in one of the following four categories.

1. Personal. Sin is an act of rebellion against God as the creator and ruler of the universe. Rather than recognizing God’s self-revelation in nature and expressing gratitude, humankind foolishly worships the creation rather than the Creator (Rom. 1:19–23). The abundant love, grace, and mercy that God shows to humans make their rebellion all the more stunning (Isa. 1:2–31). Another way of expressing the personal nature of sin is ungodliness or impiety, which refers to lack of devotion to God (Ps. 35:16; Isa. 9:17; 1 Pet. 4:18).

2. Legal. A variety of words portray sin in terms drawn from the lawcourts. Words such as “transgression” and “trespass” picture sin as the violation of a specific command of God or the crossing of a boundary that God has established (Num. 14:41–42; Rom. 4:7, 15). When individuals do things that are contrary to God’s law, they are deemed unrighteous or unjust (Isa. 10:1; Matt. 5:45; Rom. 3:5). Breaking the covenant with God is described as violating his statutes and disobeying his laws (Isa. 24:5). The result is guilt, an objective legal status that is present whenever God’s law is violated regardless of whether the individual subjectively feels guilt.

3. Moral. In the most basic sense, sin is evil, the opposite of what is good. Therefore, God’s people are to hate evil and love what is good (Amos 5:14–15; Rom. 12:9). Similarly, Scripture contrasts the upright and the wicked (Prov. 11:11; 12:6; 14:11). One could also include here the term “iniquity,” which is used to speak of perversity or crookedness (Pss. 51:2; 78:38; Isa. 59:2). Frequent mention is also made of sexual immorality as an especially grievous departure from God’s ways (Num. 25:1; Rom. 1:26–27; 1 Cor. 5:1–11).

4. Cultic. In order for a person to approach a holy God, that individual had to be in a state of purity before him. While a person could become impure without necessarily sinning (e.g., a menstruating woman was impure but not sinful), in some cases the term “impurity” clearly refers to a sinful state (Lev. 20:21; Isa. 1:25; Ezek. 24:13). The same is true of the term “unclean.” Although it is frequently used in Leviticus to speak of ritual purity, in other places it clearly refers to sinful actions or states (Ps. 51:7; Prov. 20:9; Isa. 6:5; 64:6).

Metaphors

In addition to specific terms used for “sin,” the Bible uses several metaphors or images to describe it. The following four are among the more prominent.

Missing the mark. In both Hebrew and Greek, two of the most common words for “sin” have the sense of missing the mark. But this does not mean that sin is reduced to a mistake or an oversight. The point is not that a person simply misses the mark of what God requires; instead, it is that he or she is aiming for the wrong target altogether (Exod. 34:9; Deut. 9:18). Regardless of whether missing the mark is intentional or not, the individual is still responsible (Lev. 4:2–31; Num. 15:30).

Departing from the way. Sin as departing from God’s way is especially prominent in the wisdom literature. Contrasts are drawn between the way of the righteous and the way of the wicked (Ps. 1:1, 6; Prov. 4:11–19). Wisdom is pictured as a woman who summons people to walk in her ways, but fools ignore her and depart from her ways (Prov. 9:1–18). Those who do not walk in God’s ways are eventually destroyed by their own wickedness (Prov. 11:5; 12:26; 13:15).

Adultery. Since God’s relationship with his people is described as a marriage (Isa. 62:4–5; Ezek. 16:8–14; Eph. 5:25–32), it is not surprising that the Bible describes their unfaithfulness as adultery. The prophet Hosea’s marriage to an adulterous woman vividly portrays Israel’s unfaithfulness to Yahweh (Hos. 1–3). When the Israelites chase after other gods, Yahweh accuses them of spiritual adultery in extremely graphic terms (Ezek. 16:15–52). When Christians join themselves to a prostitute or participate in idolatry, they too are engaged in spiritual adultery (1 Cor. 6:12–20; 10:1–22).

Slavery. Sin is portrayed as a power that enslaves. The prophets make it clear that Israel’s bondage to foreign powers is in fact a picture of its far greater enslavement to sin (Isa. 42:8; 43:4–7; 49:1–12). Paul makes a similar point when he refers to those who do not know Christ as slaves to sin, unable to do anything that pleases God (Rom. 6:1–23; 8:5–8). Sin is a cosmic power that is capable of using even the law to entrap people in its snare (Rom. 7:7–25).

Scope and Consequences

Sin does not travel alone; it brings a large collection of baggage along with it. Here we briefly examine its scope and consequences.

Scope. The stain of sin extends to every part of the created order. As a result of Adam’s sin, the ground was cursed to resist human efforts to cultivate it, producing thorns and thistles (Gen. 3:17–18). The promised land is described as groaning under the weight of Israel’s sin and in need of Sabbath rest (2 Chron. 36:21; Jer. 12:4); Paul applies the same language to all creation as well (Rom. 8:19–22).

Sin affects every aspect of the individual: mind, heart, will, emotions, motives, actions, and nature (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Jer. 17:9; Rom. 3:9–18). Sometimes this reality is referred to as “total depravity.” This phrase means not that people are as sinful as they could be but rather that every aspect of their lives is tainted by sin. As a descendant of Adam, every person enters the world as a sinner who then sins (Rom. 5:12–21). Sin also pollutes societal structures, corrupting culture, governments, nations, and economic markets, to name but a few.

Consequences. Since the two greatest commandments are to love God and to love one’s neighbor as oneself (Matt. 22:34–40), it makes sense that sin has consequences on both the vertical and the horizontal level. Vertically, sin results in both physical and spiritual death (Gen. 2:16–17; Rom. 5:12–14). It renders humanity guilty in God’s court of law, turns us into God’s enemies, and subjects us to God’s righteous wrath (Rom. 1:18; 3:19–20; 5:6–11). On the horizontal level, sin causes conflict between individuals and harms relationships of every kind. It breeds mistrust, jealousy, and selfishness that infect even the closest relationships.

Conclusion

No subject is more unpleasant than sin. But a proper understanding of sin is essential for understanding the gospel of Jesus Christ. As the Puritan Thomas Watson put it, “Until sin be bitter, Christ will not be sweet.”

Injure

In modern versions, the English word “injury” translates several words denoting harm that can befall a person. The most notable occurrence of “injury” is in Exod. 21:22–23, where the law discusses the case in which “people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury.” Here, “serious injury” translates the Hebrew word ’ason, elsewhere “harm” (Gen. 42:4, 38; 44:29). Scholars debate exactly what harm is in view; related to this question is the meaning of the preceding phrase: literally, “her children go out,” which the NIV renders as “she gives birth prematurely,” the NRSV as “there is a miscarriage.”

Injury

In modern versions, the English word “injury” translates several words denoting harm that can befall a person. The most notable occurrence of “injury” is in Exod. 21:22–23, where the law discusses the case in which “people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury.” Here, “serious injury” translates the Hebrew word ’ason, elsewhere “harm” (Gen. 42:4, 38; 44:29). Scholars debate exactly what harm is in view; related to this question is the meaning of the preceding phrase: literally, “her children go out,” which the NIV renders as “she gives birth prematurely,” the NRSV as “there is a miscarriage.”

Ink

In ancient times ink was made of soot or a metallic compound mixed with oil or plant gum and applied to papyrus or parchment with a pen or brush. Although the Bible has only four references to ink (Jer. 36:18; 2 Cor. 3:3; 2 John 12; 3 John 13), it was used to write many documents mentioned in its pages and the Bible itself.

Inkhorn

In Ezek. 9:2–3, 11 the KJV translates the Hebrew word qeset as “inkhorn,” referring to a writing case or kit. It probably is a palette with grooves for pens and hollows for ink cakes or a pen case with inkwell for liquid ink.

Inn

The word “inn” appears twice in most English versions of the Bible (NASB, NRSV, NKJV, ESV, HCSB, NET): in the account of the birth of Jesus (Luke 2:7) and in the parable of the good Samaritan (10:34). The former is likely a mistranslation, since the Greek term (katalyma) probably refers not to a first-century hotel (Bethlehem was too small to have an inn), but either to a “caravansary” (a stopping place for caravans) or to a “guest room” in a private home (cf. Mark 14:14; Luke 22:11; so NIV). Because of the crowds associated with the census, Joseph and Mary were forced out of human accommodations and into an area reserved for animals; the baby Jesus was laid in a feeding trough (manger). The “inn” in the story of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:30–37) represents a different Greek term (pandocheion) and likely refers to a roadside inn. The Samaritan took the wounded man here for recuperation.

Inner Being

The Petrine phrase “inner self” (lit., “hidden person of the heart” [1 Pet. 3:4]) is nearly identical with the Pauline phrase “inner being.” There are three references to this inner person in Paul’s writings. Two of these clearly refer to a Christian as opposed to a non-Christian (2 Cor. 4:16; Eph. 3:16); one is unclear (Rom. 7:22). Rather than import the meaning from the first two into Romans 7:22, we should seek the broader semantic meaning of the phrase. It is the immaterial aspects of humanity—mind, spirit—in distinction from the outward person, which wastes away (2 Cor. 4:16). In this inner sphere the Holy Spirit does his renewing and saving work (Eph. 3:16). Thus, we must distinguish between “inner person” and “new person” (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10), which does seem to have a soteriological sense, because the former may still be corrupt, vain, and alienated from the life of God (Eph. 4:18).

Inner Self

The Petrine phrase “inner self” (lit., “hidden person of the heart” [1 Pet. 3:4]) is nearly identical with the Pauline phrase “inner being.” There are three references to this inner person in Paul’s writings. Two of these clearly refer to a Christian as opposed to a non-Christian (2 Cor. 4:16; Eph. 3:16); one is unclear (Rom. 7:22). Rather than import the meaning from the first two into Romans 7:22, we should seek the broader semantic meaning of the phrase. It is the immaterial aspects of humanity—mind, spirit—in distinction from the outward person, which wastes away (2 Cor. 4:16). In this inner sphere the Holy Spirit does his renewing and saving work (Eph. 3:16). Thus, we must distinguish between “inner person” and “new person” (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10), which does seem to have a soteriological sense, because the former may still be corrupt, vain, and alienated from the life of God (Eph. 4:18).

Innkeeper

One who owns, manages, or serves as host at an inn. The only direct reference to an innkeeper in the OT is in an Aramaic translation (Targum) of Josh. 2:1 that designates Rahab as such (cf. Josephus, Ant. 5.8, 30). The innkeeper (Gk. pandocheus) of Luke 10:35 was paid by the good Samaritan to care for the victim of robbers along the road from Jerusalem to Jericho. No innkeeper (only the “inn” or “guest room”) is mentioned in the nativity account of Luke 2:4–7.

Innocence

Freedom from sin, guilt, impurity, blame, guile, or harm. This broad semantic range includes several Hebrew and Greek words. In the OT, one root, tsdq, which suggests “righteousness,” is used in a forensic sense (e.g., Gen. 44:16; Job 9:15), and another, nqh, which means “free from, clean,” appears in cultic contexts (e.g., Pss. 19:13; 26:6). However, because God is the ultimate judge, these spheres often overlap (e.g., 1 Kings 8:32; Jer. 2:35). Other words suggest a lack of guile (2 Sam. 15:11) or of impurity (Prov. 16:2; 21:8). The common phrase “innocent blood” (e.g., Deut. 19:10; Ps. 106:38) indicates that a victim of murder is undeserving of this fate. God warns Israel not to shed innocent blood (Deut. 27:25; Jer. 22:3). Innocence and guilt are calculated in the ultimate sense before God, who is “the Judge of all the earth” (Gen. 18:25). This is why the psalmist desires to be forgiven or declared innocent of hidden faults and kept from committing willful sins (Ps. 19:12–13).

In the NT, references to innocence are relatively rare, yet the range of meanings spans the forensic (Matt. 27:19) to the cultic (Matt. 12:5, 7), including the connotations of a lack of guile (Matt. 10:16; Rom. 16:19) or of impurity (Acts 20:26). The phrase “innocent blood” reappears, now applied to Jesus (Matt. 27:4; cf. 27:24), and the joining of the forensic and the cultic meanings of innocence in God’s judgment is explicitly stated (1 Cor. 4:4).

In Jesus’ trial and death, his innocence is clearly shown even though he is condemned as guilty. Judas acknowledges that he has betrayed innocent blood (Matt. 27:4), Pilate announces that he finds no basis for a charge against Jesus (John 19:4), and a centurion declares that Jesus is “righteous” (NIV) or “innocent” (NASB) (Luke 23:47, translating dikaios). God now “justifies the wicked” by faith in Jesus (Rom. 4:5).

Inquire of God

To seek guidance from God. In the OT, this usually was done through an intermediary such as a prophet, priest, or seer (Exod. 18:15; Judg. 18:5; 1 Sam. 9:9; 22:15; 2 Kings 8:8; 22:18; Jer. 37:7). The priests could also inquire of God through the use of the ephod and the Urim and Thummim, which were God-ordained lots (Num. 27:21; 1 Sam. 23:9–13; 28:6). Warfare, health, and governance were primary concerns for inquiries to God but were by no means the only issues (1 Sam. 23:2; 2 Sam. 5:23; 2 Kings 3:11; 2 Chron. 18:4, 6–7). Of course, inquiring of God did not guarantee a favorable answer or any answer at all (Ezek. 20:3). Only certain avenues of inquiry were acceptable to God. For example, the Israelites were prohibited from consulting wizards, mediums, and necromancers (Deut. 18:10–11; 1 Sam. 28:3, 7). Naturally, the Israelites were forbidden to inquire of other deities, such as Baal-Zebub, and doing so had harmful consequences (2 Kings 1:2–6). Although people were dependent on God’s self-revelation, God did not need to wait on them to inquire. He could communicate in dreams, visions, by sending a prophet or an angel, or more directly (Gen. 20:3; Exod. 3:2).

The avenues to inquiring of God changed with the advent of Jesus and the loss of the second temple. This change was foreshadowed in Jesus’ conversation with the Samaritan woman in John 4. Previously, access to God involved seeking him at the proper place. With no temple, access to God was severely limited. As a result, in rabbinic Judaism, Torah study and interpretation became the primary means for inquiring of God. In the NT, when Christ’s death tore in half the temple’s curtain, and when the Spirit came, access to God became open to all who were believers (Matt. 27:51; Acts 1:5, 8; 2:33; Heb. 6:19–20). Thus, for the disciple of Jesus, to inquire of God is as simple as asking (John 11:22; James 1:5).

Insects

The Bible is full of teeming creatures and swarming things. These creatures, insects, often play significant roles in the stories and the events described in them. From the first chapter of the Bible to the very last book, these flying, creeping, hopping, and crawling things are prominent.

Terms for Insects

Insects are described in the Bible with both general and specific terms. In the OT, there are three general terms for insects and twenty terms used to refer to specific types of insects. In the NT, two different types of insects are referenced: gnats and locusts.

The two most common general terms for insects are variously translated. Terms and phrases used to describe them include “living creatures” (Gen. 1:20), “creatures that move along the ground” (Gen. 1:24–26; 6:7, 20; 7:8, 14, 23; 8:17, 19; Lev. 5:2; Ezek. 38:20; Hos. 2:18), that which “moves” (Gen. 9:3), “swarming things” (Lev. 11:10), “flying insects” (Lev. 11:20–21, 23; Deut. 14:19), “creatures” (Lev. 11:43), “crawling things” (Lev. 22:5; Ezek. 8:10), “reptiles” (1 Kings 4:33), “teeming creatures” (Ps. 104:25), “small creatures” (Ps. 148:10), and “sea creatures” (Hab. 1:14). The other general term for insects is used with reference to swarms of insects, typically flies (Exod. 8:21–22, 24, 29; Pss. 78:45; 105:31). Specific insects named in Scripture are listed below.

Ants. Ants are used in Proverbs as an example of and encouragement toward wisdom. In 6:6 ants serve as an example for sluggards to reform their slothful ways. Also, in 30:25 ants serve as an example of creatures that, despite their diminutive size, are wise enough to make advance preparations for the long winter.

Bees. Bees are used both literally and figuratively in Scripture. Judges 14:8 refers to honeybees, the product of which becomes the object of Samson’s riddle. The other three uses of bees in the OT are figurative of swarms of enemies against God’s people (Deut. 1:44; Ps. 118:12; Isa. 7:18).

Fleas. Fleas are referenced in the OT only by David to indicate his insignificance in comparison with King Saul (1 Sam. 24:14; 26:20). The irony of the comparison becomes clear with David’s later ascendancy.

Flies. The plague of flies follows that of gnats on Egypt (Exod. 8:20–31). Although the gnats are never said to have left Egypt, the flies are removed upon Moses’ prayer. In Eccles. 10:1 the stench of dead flies is compared to the impact that folly can have on the wise. In Isa. 7:18 flies represent Egypt being summoned by God as his avenging agents on Judah’s sin. In addition, one of the gods in Ekron was named “Baal-Zebub,” which means “lord of the flies” (2 Kings 1:2–3, 6, 16). The reference to Satan in the NT using a similar name is likely an adaptation of the OT god of Ekron (Matt. 10:25; 12:24, 27; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15, 18–19).

Gnats. Gnats are distinguished from flies in the OT, though the distinction is not always apparent. Gnats are employed by God in the third plague on Egypt (Exod. 8:16–19), while flies form the means of punishment in the fourth plague. The two are listed together in Ps. 105:31 and appear parallel, though the former may be a reference to a swarm. Gnats were also used by Jesus to illustrate the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and the scribes (Matt. 23:24).

Hornets. The Bible uses hornets in Scripture as an agent of God’s destruction. The term occurs three times in the OT. In each occurrence these stinging insects refer to God’s expulsion of the Canaanites from the land that God promised to his people. The first two times, Exod. 23:28 and Deut. 7:20, hornets are used in reference to a promise of what God will do; the third time, Josh. 24:12, they illustrate what God did.

Locusts. Of particular interest is the use of locusts in the Bible. The term or a similar nomenclature occurs close to fifty times in the NIV. Locusts demonstrate a number of characteristics in Scripture. First, they are under God’s control (Exod. 10:13–19). As such, they have no king (Prov. 30:27). They serve God’s purposes. Second, locusts often occur in very large numbers or swarms (Judg. 6:5; Jer. 46:23; Nah. 3:15). At times, their numbers can be so large as to cause darkness in the land (Exod. 10:15). Third, in large numbers these insects have been known to ravage homes, devour the land, devastate fields, and debark trees (Exod. 10:12–15; Deut. 28:38; 1 Kings 8:37; 2 Chron. 7:13; Pss. 78:46; 105:34; Isa. 33:4; Joel 1:4–7). Due to their fierceness, they were compared to horses (Rev. 9:7). Fourth, locusts hide at night (Nah. 3:17). Finally, certain types of locusts were used as food.

Moths. Moths are referred to seven times in the OT and four times in the NT. Job uses moths to illustrate the fragility of the unrighteous before God (4:19) and the impermanence of their labors (27:18). The other references to moths in Scripture present them as the consumers of the wealth (garments) and pride of humankind as a means of God’s judgment (Job 13:28; Ps. 39:11; Isa. 50:9; 51:8; Hos. 5:12; Matt. 6:19–20; Luke 12:33; James 5:2).

Functions of Insects in Scripture

As agents in God’s judgment. Insects serve a variety of functions in Scripture. Most notably, insects serve as agents of judgment from God. The OT indicates how insects were used as judgment on both Israel and their enemies.

Moses warned of God’s judgment for Israel’s violation of the covenant. He advised Israel that as a consequence of their sin, they would expend much labor in the field but harvest little, because the locusts would consume them (Deut. 28:38).

Solomon, in his prayer of dedication at the temple, beseeched God regarding judgment that he might send in the form of grasshoppers to besiege the land. He asked that when the people of God repent and pray, God would hear and forgive (2 Chron. 6:26–30). God similarly responded by promising that when he “command[s] locusts to devour the land” as judgment for sin, and his people humble themselves and pray, he will heal and forgive (2 Chron. 7:13–14; cf. 1 Kings 8:37).

The psalmist reminded Israel of God’s wonderful works in their past, one of which was his use of insects as a means of his judgment (Ps. 78:45–46; cf. 105:34).

Joel 1:4 and 2:25 describe God’s judgment on Israel for their unfaithfulness in successive waves of intensity (cf. Deut. 28:38, 42; 2 Chron. 6:28; Amos 4:9–10; 7:1–3). The devastation led to crop failure, famine, destruction of vines and fig trees, and great mourning. The severity of the judgment is described as being unlike anything anyone in the community had ever experienced (Joel 1:2–3).

Locusts are the subject of one of the visions of the prophet Amos. In the vision, God showed him the destructive power of these insects as a means of judgment. Upon seeing the vision, the prophet interceded for the people, and God relented (Amos 7:1–3).

Insects were also used as judgments on Israel’s enemies. In the plagues on Egypt, insects were the agents of the third, fourth, and eighth plagues. The third plague (Exod. 8:16–19) was gnats. Interestingly, this was the first of Moses’ signs that the magicians of Pharaoh could not reproduce. Their response to the Egyptian king was that this must be the “finger of God.” There is no record of the gnats ever leaving Egypt, unlike the other plagues.

The fourth plague was flies (Exod. 8:20–32). Here the Bible specifically indicates a distinction between the land of Goshen, where the Israelites dwelled, and the rest of the land of Egypt. The flies covered all of Egypt except Goshen. This plague led to Pharaoh’s first offer of compromise. Once Moses prayed and the flies left Egypt, Pharaoh hardened his heart.

The eighth plague was in the form of locusts (Exod. 10:1–20). In response to this plague, Pharaoh’s own officials complained to him, beseeching him to let Israel leave their country lest it be entirely destroyed. The threat of this plague led to Pharaoh’s second offer of compromise. Once the locusts began to devastate the land of Egypt, Pharaoh confessed his sin before God, but as soon as the locusts were removed, his heart again became hardened. Thus, three of the ten plagues on Egypt were in the form of insects.

At the end of a series of “woe” passages, the prophet Isaiah proclaimed God’s judgment against the enemies of his people because of their oppression. In the end, those who plundered will themselves be plundered, as if by a “swarm of locusts” (Isa. 33:1–4; cf. Jer. 51:14, 27).

Insects were also used as judgment on people who dwelled in the land of Israel prior to Israel’s occupation. Both before and after the event took place, the Bible describes how God sent hornets to help drive out the occupants of the land of Canaan in preparation for Israel’s arrival. This is described as part of God’s judgment on these nations for their sins against him (Exod. 23:28; Deut. 7:20; Josh. 24:12).

As food. Insects also are mentioned in Scripture as food. Certain types of locusts are listed as clean and eligible for consumption. The NT describes the diet of John the Baptist, which consisted of locusts and wild honey—a diet entirely dependent on insects (Matt. 3:4; Mark 1:6). The OT also notes Samson enjoying the labor of bees as food (Judg. 14:8–9).

Used figuratively. Most often, insects are used figuratively in Scripture. They are used in the proverbs of Scripture to illustrate wisdom. The sages wrote about ants (Prov. 6:6; 30:25), locusts (Prov. 30:27), and even dead flies (Eccles. 10:1) both to extol wisdom and to encourage its development in humankind.

Another figurative use of insects is in the riddle about bees and honey posed by Samson to the Philistines (Judg. 14:12–18). As noted above, Samson ate honey (Judg. 14:8–9; cf. 1 Sam. 14:25–29, 43). Also, Scripture describes the promised land as a place of “milk and honey.”

Insects also are used to symbolize pursuing enemies (Deut. 1:44; Ps. 118:12; Isa. 7:18), innumerable forces (Judg. 6:5; 7:12; Ps. 105:34; Jer. 46:23; Joel 2:25), insignificance (Num. 13:33; 1 Sam. 24:14; 26:20; Job 4:19; 27:18; Ps. 109:23; Eccles. 12:5; Isa. 40:22), vulnerability (Job 4:19), God’s incomparable nature (Job 39:20), the brevity of life (Ps. 109:23), wisdom and organization (Prov. 30:27), and an invading army (Isa. 7:18; Jer. 51:14, 27), and they are employed in a taunt against Israel’s enemies (Nah. 3:15–17), a lesson on hypocrisy (Matt. 23:24), and an image of eschatological judgment (Rev. 9:4–11).

Scriptural Truths about Insects

1. Insects are part of God’s creation. In view of all the uses of insects in Scripture, several key truths emerge. First, insects are a part of the totality of God’s creation. The very first chapter of the Bible uses one of the general terms for insects as part of God’s creative activity on the sixth day of creation (Gen. 1:24). After God reviewed the creation on that day, his assessment of it, including the insects, was that it was “good” (1:25).

2. Insects are under God’s control. A second scriptural truth related to insects in the Bible is that they are under God’s control. In Deut. 7:20 God promised to send hornets ahead of the children of Israel to prepare the promised land for their arrival. Also, in Joel 2:25, when God promised to repair the damage to the land caused by the locusts, he described them as “my great army that I sent.” Thus, the picture emerges that what God has created, he alone reserves the authority to control.

3. Insects are cared for by God. A final truth regarding insects in Scripture is that God takes care of them. Just as Jesus explained God’s care for the birds of the air (Matt. 7:26), the psalmist explained that all of God’s creation, specifically insects, “look to you to give them their food at the proper time” (Ps. 104:25–27). The conclusion of the psalmist is appropriate for all of God’s creation: “When you hide your face, they are terrified; when you take away their breath, they die and return to the dust. When you send your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the ground” (104:29–30). Thus, in the end, God creates, God controls, and God cares—a lesson that all of God’s creation shares.

Inspection Gate

One of two gates on the eastern enclosure wall of the temple precinct. This gate was between the East Gate (Neh. 3:29) to the south and “the room above the corner” and the Sheep Gate to the north (Neh. 3:31).

Inspiration of Scripture

In biblical and systematic theology, “inspiration” is one of several descriptions of God’s involvement in the production of Scripture. It is not an exhaustive description of the many ways in which divine revelation is mediated.

Taken as a description of “all Scripture” (as in 2 Tim. 3:16), inspiration must necessarily encompass such diverse modes of revelation as words audibly spoken or dictated by God and written down by humans (i.e., dictation: “the Lord said to Moses,” “thus says the Lord”), words spoken by angels, texts in which a divine or angelic voice is entirely obscured by the voice and identity of the human author (e.g., the letters of Paul), and, in the vast majority of cases, texts that are essentially anonymous, invoking no human author or divine author in particular. Moreover, any catalog of divinely inspired texts must include not only direct quotations of God’s speech but also occasional letters (the NT Epistles), prayers directed to God by humans (the Psalter), divine oracles given through prophets, the results of historical research (e.g., Luke 1:1–4; 1 Kings 14:19), and anthological texts that were collected and edited over a long period of time, often by unnamed individuals or groups of individuals.

Thus, the inspiration of Scripture must be regarded as a concept that is applied in the broadest possible way to the materials of Scripture. While the doctrine of inspiration constitutes a strong statement concerning the authority and divine authorship of Scripture, it must remain highly flexible with regard to the particular modes and literary products of divine revelation in Scripture.

God-Breathed (theopneustos) in 2 Timothy 3:16

The idea of divine inspiration is stated most clearly in 2 Tim. 3:16–17: “All Scripture is God-breathed [theopneustos] and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” Here, the fact of divine inspiration serves the apostle’s interest in the authority and relevance of Scripture, especially as Scripture undergirds Timothy’s religious education (2 Tim. 3:14–15). This sole biblical use of the term theopneustos says little about how inspiration is accomplished, and the emphasis is entirely on the consequences of the fact. Because it is inspired, all Scripture is useful and authoritative for a variety of purposes.

In some older English translations, the key term, theopneustos, was translated as “inspired,” following the ancient tradition of rendering the term in Latin as divinitus inspirata. Strictly speaking, “inspiration” is not a biblical term. In one classic Protestant evangelical exposition of the text and doctrine, B. B. Warfield noted that the Greek word denotes not so much a “breathing in” as a “breathing out” on God’s part. Scripture is not simply a container into which God has breathed his word (so that Scripture merely “contains” God’s word), nor is Scripture only “inspiring,” in the sense that it works an effect on the reader (taking theopneustos in an active rather than a passive sense: “God-breathing” rather than “God-breathed”). Scripture is not the product of inspiration, as if produced by inspired authors but not itself inspired. Rather than all these things, it is most correct to say that Scripture is, in the strictly literal sense of the word, “expired”—breathed out by God himself. This view of the matter is reflected in, among other places, the NIV translation of theopneustos as “God-breathed.”

The translation by the NIV—“all Scripture is God-breathed and is useful . . .”—takes theopneustos as a grammatical predicate. Others have suggested that theopneustos can be understood attributively: “all God-breathed Scripture is useful.” This interpretation remains a minority position, especially among evangelical scholars, both on grammatical grounds and because it implies a distinction between inspired and noninspired Scriptures. There is little other evidence for such a notion in the NT.

The application of the notion of inspiration to the whole of the Christian canon (OT and NT) inevitably involves some extension of the original meaning of 2 Tim. 3:16. By no account were the NT writings either composed or collected prior to the writing of 2 Timothy, and the final shape of the Christian OT canon may also have been undecided at the time 2 Tim. 3:16 was written. In postbiblical Christian theology, however, what is said of “all Scripture” (pāsa graphē) in 2 Tim. 3:16 is applied to all Christian Scripture, regardless of what was directly in view when the verse was written. It is likely that by “all Scripture,” the apostle meant nothing more than the Christian OT—that is, the books that lay before Timothy as he was educated in the faith from his infancy (2 Tim. 3:14–15). In systematic theology, the application of inspiration and other descriptors of “Scripture” to the NT writings owes much to a comment in 2 Pet. 3:16 that places the letters of Paul in the same class as “the other Scriptures” (tas loipas graphas).

Why “Inspiration”?

The sheer diversity of the modes of revelation described in the Bible raises a question: Why is “inspiration” (or, as Warfield argued, “expiration” or “breathing out”) a particularly appropriate description of God’s involvement in the production of the scriptural text? At the root of theopneustos, Greek pneuma (as well as its Hebrew cognate, ruakh) denotes several related concepts ranging from “wind” or “breath” to “spirit,” as in “the Holy Spirit.” It is from this complex of meanings that the relevance of theopneustos is evident.

Physiologically, several of the speech organs are also organs of respiration, so that the spoken word can be thought of as a kind of breathing, as in Acts 9:1: “Saul was still breathing out [empneuōn] murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples.” To speak of Scripture as “God-breathed,” then, is simply to identify it as God’s spoken utterance or word, as in the many biblical texts that introduce a scriptural utterance as “the word of the Lord” or with the phrase “thus says the Lord.” To the extent that 2 Tim. 3:16 has in view the physiological dimension of “breathing,” it extends these explicit statements of divine speaking to the whole of Scripture. In one sense, theopneustos is an anthropomorphism: God does not speak as a human, with lungs, throat, and mouth. Scripture is not God-breathed as opposed to being written by humans; the figurative breathing or speaking of God does not circumvent other processes of textual production. Again, the idea of inspiration pertains more to the authority of Scripture as revelation than to the mode of the mediation of God’s word.

As with the concept of “inspiration” itself, to speak of Scripture as the “word of God” specifies its divine authority without exhaustively describing how that word is mediated to the human author who then commits it to writing. To speak of Scripture as the “breathing out” of God is to invoke the broader concept of God’s (anthropomorphic) breath, and thus to place scriptural production among the other phenomena that are so described. These include the divine creation of life (Gen. 2:7; Job 33:4; Ezek. 37:5) and the cosmos (Ps. 33:6), divine judgment and destruction (Job 4:9; Isa. 30:33; 2 Thess. 2:8), the impartation of divine wisdom (Job 32:8), the impartation of the Holy Spirit (John 20:22), and the continuing action of God in creation (Exod. 15:10; Job 37:10; Isa. 40:7). In contrast to the living God of Israel, the idols lack breath (ruakh) and are therefore false gods (Jer. 10:14).

Equally important as the anthropomorphic description of God’s role as exhalation or speaking is the fact that pneuma refers not only to bodily breathing but also to the spirit of God—that is, the Holy Spirit. The inspiration of scriptural revelation is the particular work of the Holy Spirit, as comes to light particularly in 2 Pet. 1:20–21: “You must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” Unlike 2 Tim. 3:16, this verse gives a description of the mechanism by which God is involved in scriptural production: the Holy Spirit “carries along” humans speaking from God. Again, however, if this is to be taken as a description of the entirety of the Christian Bible, it must encompass a wide variety of literary phenomena.

As in 2 Tim. 3:16, the emphasis is on the authority and divine origin of Scripture rather than on the worldly history of the Bible. Like the adjective “God-breathed,” the Holy Spirit’s “carrying along” of the prophets is figurative and anthropomorphic, and the expression leaves many questions unanswered regarding the mode of revelation. Nevertheless, the specific mention of the role of the Holy Spirit as the divine agent of scriptural production sheds light on the term theopneustos in 2 Tim. 3:16. This is consistent with the citation formula in Acts 4:25, which quotes Ps. 2:1–2 by saying, “You [God] spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David.” This verse highlights several facets of the notion of the inspiration of Scripture: its character as divine speech, the agency of the Holy Spirit, and the concurrence of divine and human authorship.

Instant

A moment of time (Job 7:19; Prov. 6:15; Isa. 29:5). The KJV also uses “instant” in its archaic sense of “insistent.” Luke 23:23 KJV, for example, reads, “And they were instant with loud voices, requiring that he might be crucified. And the voices of them and of the chief priests prevailed.” Similarly, in Rom. 12:12 KJV Paul encourages the Roman believers to be “instant in prayer.”

Instruct

In the Hebrew Bible several different words can be translated as “instruction.” In Exod. 24:12 God informs Moses that the laws and commands given to him on the mountain are for Israel’s instruction (yarah), instruction (dabar) given at the feet of God (Deut. 33:3). Indeed, Job 22:22 concedes that instruction (torah) proceeds from God’s mouth, while Nehemiah reminds God of his promises to the people of Israel when he refers to the instructions (dabar) given to Moses for repentance (Neh. 1:8). When the priests fail to give “true instruction,” they let the people go astray, inviting God’s wrath (Mal. 2:1–10). Similarly, failure to observe divine instruction (musar) elicits God’s condemnation (Ps. 50:17).

But the biblical book that bills itself as the instruction manual is Proverbs (part of the poetic section in the OT known as the Ketubim, the Writings), which is presented in the form of parental instruction (musar) to a child (1:8; 4:1; 13:1; 19:27), given in a royal setting (1:1) or a school. The book of Proverbs has been compared to similar Egyptian writings (The Instruction of Amenemope; The Maxims of Ptahhotep) and Sumerian wisdom as well as an Aramaic proverbial writing, Ahiqar.

While Proverbs, like its Egyptian and Mesopotamian counterparts, dispenses advice on how to successfully negotiate life, a distinct element of the biblical book is the setting of wisdom as inextricably bound to the “fear of the Lord” (1:7; 9:10). In Proverbs, instruction is also dispensed by the persona “Lady Wisdom” (chap. 8), whose advice, in contrast to that of the “loose” woman, leads to knowledge, wisdom, and life.

Jesus was known for his authoritative teaching of the law, which in the Synoptic Gospels is dominated by his use of parables for instruction (Matt. 7:29; Mark 1:22; Luke 4:32, 36). Accepting Jesus Christ entails discarding any false teaching and embracing the instruction (logos) of Jesus (1 Tim. 6:3–4; Heb. 6:2). Anyone who disregards this instruction is to be avoided and not socialized with (2 Thess. 3:14).

Instruction (didachē) in the Pauline writings is presumed to be a gift of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 14:6, 26) that is to be managed by the one so gifted for the benefit of the community of believers. It is to be shared in and out of season (2 Tim. 4:2). Such giftedness is also to be understood as entitling the instructor to support by the church (Gal. 6:6). Indeed, the Thessalonians are warned that failure to heed apostolic instruction (logos) is tantamount to disobeying God (1 Thess. 4:8; 2 Thess. 3:14). On the other hand, reminiscent of the Proverbs, parental instruction (nouthesia) should encourage rather than exasperate the child (Eph. 6:4). See also Education.

Instruction

In the Hebrew Bible several different words can be translated as “instruction.” In Exod. 24:12 God informs Moses that the laws and commands given to him on the mountain are for Israel’s instruction (yarah), instruction (dabar) given at the feet of God (Deut. 33:3). Indeed, Job 22:22 concedes that instruction (torah) proceeds from God’s mouth, while Nehemiah reminds God of his promises to the people of Israel when he refers to the instructions (dabar) given to Moses for repentance (Neh. 1:8). When the priests fail to give “true instruction,” they let the people go astray, inviting God’s wrath (Mal. 2:1–10). Similarly, failure to observe divine instruction (musar) elicits God’s condemnation (Ps. 50:17).

But the biblical book that bills itself as the instruction manual is Proverbs (part of the poetic section in the OT known as the Ketubim, the Writings), which is presented in the form of parental instruction (musar) to a child (1:8; 4:1; 13:1; 19:27), given in a royal setting (1:1) or a school. The book of Proverbs has been compared to similar Egyptian writings (The Instruction of Amenemope; The Maxims of Ptahhotep) and Sumerian wisdom as well as an Aramaic proverbial writing, Ahiqar.

While Proverbs, like its Egyptian and Mesopotamian counterparts, dispenses advice on how to successfully negotiate life, a distinct element of the biblical book is the setting of wisdom as inextricably bound to the “fear of the Lord” (1:7; 9:10). In Proverbs, instruction is also dispensed by the persona “Lady Wisdom” (chap. 8), whose advice, in contrast to that of the “loose” woman, leads to knowledge, wisdom, and life.

Jesus was known for his authoritative teaching of the law, which in the Synoptic Gospels is dominated by his use of parables for instruction (Matt. 7:29; Mark 1:22; Luke 4:32, 36). Accepting Jesus Christ entails discarding any false teaching and embracing the instruction (logos) of Jesus (1 Tim. 6:3–4; Heb. 6:2). Anyone who disregards this instruction is to be avoided and not socialized with (2 Thess. 3:14).

Instruction (didachē) in the Pauline writings is presumed to be a gift of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 14:6, 26) that is to be managed by the one so gifted for the benefit of the community of believers. It is to be shared in and out of season (2 Tim. 4:2). Such giftedness is also to be understood as entitling the instructor to support by the church (Gal. 6:6). Indeed, the Thessalonians are warned that failure to heed apostolic instruction (logos) is tantamount to disobeying God (1 Thess. 4:8; 2 Thess. 3:14). On the other hand, reminiscent of the Proverbs, parental instruction (nouthesia) should encourage rather than exasperate the child (Eph. 6:4). See also Education.

Instrument

In the NIV, the term “instrument” is used in the OT strictly with reference to musical instruments of various kinds; in the NT, the term can mean someone or something used as a tool by God (Acts 9:15; 2 Tim. 2:21) or used for either wickedness or righteousness (Rom. 6:13). The KJV also uses the term “instrument” for a variety of implements and utensils, including weapons (Gen. 49:5), temple furnishings and utensils (Exod. 25:9; Num. 4:12), and farming implements (2 Sam. 24:22; 1 Kings 19:21).

Instruments

The Bible often refers to songs, music, musical sounds and instruments, and dancing. We can infer several details about the instruments from their descriptions in the Bible as well as from archaeological finds and other ancient texts. NT references to music are scant; the OT material may be supplemented by ancient Near Eastern resources from Egypt, Canaan/Israel, Ugarit, and Mesopotamia.

Music

Style. In all likelihood, Israel’s music sounded much like that of its neighbors. This conjecture is particularly strengthened by findings from Ugarit, a city on the Syrian coast across from Cyprus. These findings, roughly from the time of the judges, mention some of the same musical instruments found in the Bible, some of which have been uncovered by archaeologists. The style of the poetry is very similar to the Song of Deborah (Judg. 5). Lyrically, some of the descriptions and titles used by the Canaanites for Baal are applied by Israel to Yahweh, to assert that he is the true God who has these attributes. Given these similarities in text, poetic style, and instrumentation, it is most probable that Israel’s music sounded much like that of its neighbors. Still, there is some evidence for regional styles. The direction to play psalms “according to gittith” (superscription to Pss. 8; 81; 84) may refer to the style of Gath, and similar regional interpretations are proposed for other directions in the psalms.

Lyrics. The lyric side of Israel’s songs exhibits rhythm and deliberate structure. The most obvious planned structure is the alphabetic acrostic, where the poet or songwriter composes one or more verses to begin with successive letters of the Hebrew alphabet. But the psalms exhibit many other structures involving symmetries and balance, such as equal halves, centered lines, symmetrical patterns of stanza length, and other features. The lines themselves usually demonstrate balance among their parts, having similar numbers of beats or accented syllables. Several lament poems exhibit a particular pattern known as qinah meter, which presumably also fits a musical template.

Performance. The performance of the psalms was, on at least some occasions, accompanied by multiple instruments and performed in a choir to achieve the volume necessary for community gatherings, which had no amplification equipment. It is generally assumed, though not known, that all choir members sang melody rather than in parts. They may well have integrated solo performances and musical interludes. From the poetry of the psalms, we observe different speaking voices. That is, in some instances, we hear the voice of the king, or of the people generally, or an official who addresses the audience, or a priestly or prophetic speaking voice, even the words of God himself. This is very suggestive that public performance may have brought different singers to the foreground at different times. There are also poems that employ a repeated refrain, suggesting an antiphonal performance, and others in which the priests or people in Jerusalem take up parts different from those of the arriving worshipers. While the exact execution of these songs is speculative, these elements suggest a certain amount of pageantry, at least for community settings. David is responsible for setting up Israel’s musical orders for the temple, with professional musicians with rotating responsibilities (1 Chron. 16; 25).

Instruments

Strings. The most frequently mentioned instrument is the kinnor, a lyre, also often referred to as a harp. The sound box of the harp is at the base, from which a straight or curved neck rises at a sharp angle so that the strings going from the box to the neck are of different length. The lyre has two uprights and a crosspiece on top, from which the strings of similar length stretch down to the sound box. The kinnor-lyre had eight to ten strings (based on Akkadian and Ugaritic findings and Jewish descriptions) and could be played with a pick or by hand. David’s “harp” was such a lyre. The “harp” mentioned in the NT (1 Cor. 14:7; Rev. 5:8; 14:2; 15:2) probably was also a lyre. Another OT lyre, or perhaps a harp, the nebel, complemented the kinnor-lyre. Jewish tradition about the strings implies that it produced a lower sound. The nebel-lyre is most often mentioned with other instruments, though occasionally alone. Another stringed instrument mentioned three times, the ’asor, may have been a harp or a lyre with ten strings (Pss. 33:2; 92:3; 144:9). In Pss. 45:8; 150:4 there is mention of “the strings,” which may refer to more than just the stringed instruments specifically mentioned in the Bible. The ancient world also had lutes, an instrument with a long, straight neck, fretted like a guitar or ukulele, proceeding from a small sound box.

Percussion. Timbrels, cymbals, and castanets or rattles are percussion instruments mentioned in the Bible. The timbrel, also known from Egypt and Ugarit, was a hand drum, like a tambourine but without metal jingles. The timbrel accompanies dancing and may have been used by the dancers (Exod. 15:20; Judg. 11:34; 1 Sam. 18:6). Cymbals may have been paired or individual, but it is not certain whether these latter were suspended cymbals or finger cymbals, being four to six inches in diameter. In 2 Sam. 6:5 there is mention of another percussion instrument, mena’an’im (the root of this word means “to shake”), perhaps “sistrums” (NIV) or “castanets” (NASB) (although the KJV renders it as “cornets”). Egyptian sistrums were small, forked, metal instruments with three sliding crossbars that had hooked ends. Archaeologists have also found rattles made of pottery, with ceramic balls inside. Castanets were small hand-clappers joined with a string. Israel likely had all of these, though it is hard to know which is referred to in 2 Sam. 6:5. The cymbal is mentioned once in the NT (1 Cor. 13:1), though not as musically pleasing in that context.

Woodwinds and horns. The OT attests to both an animal horn, most frequently called a shopar, and a metal trumpet, the khatsotserah (Num. 10:2–10). The NT refers to a horn with a word used to translate both OT terms (salpinx). The ancient world had both flutes and shawms. Shawms have a bell-like flare at the end, while the shaft of a flute is straight to the end. What is likely a double-reed shawm is frequently translated “flute” (1 Sam. 10:5; 1 Kings 1:40; Isa. 5:12; 30:29; Jer. 48:36 [NIV: “pipes”]). It is unclear whether the instrument mentioned in Gen. 4:21; Ps. 150:4 commonly translated as “flute” is a woodwind or a stringed instrument. The NT also mentions a flute or reed instrument (Matt. 11:17; 9:23; 1 Cor. 14:7; Rev. 18:22) that could be played for dancing or mourning.

Simplicity and complexity. Instruments such as horns, trumpets, and some percussion instruments were not used only for making music. The blowing of the ram’s horn or the trumpet might be used to sound the alarm, convene an assembly, or in preparation for an announcement. Aaron was to wear metal bells on the hem of his robe when entering the holy place (Exod. 28:33–35). Some of the percussion instruments may have been used to augment dance and keep rhythm more than to make music for singing. The strings were the primary instruments to accompany singing, though they were not necessarily accompanied by song.

A few Assyrian texts treat the tuning and playing of music with technical notations. From their string designations and tuning directions we can infer that their scales utilized seven notes as in the modern octave (seven notes plus one repeating). The notes for tuning stringed instruments suggest that the tunings produced different scales. Musical theory, then, was not completely absent. Many of the pictorial representations of musicians from Egypt and Mesopotamia include multiple instruments being played together (cf. Nebuchadnezzar’s instructions in Dan. 3:5, 7, 10, 15 and David’s celebration in 2 Sam. 6:5). These are not simply multiple kinds of noisemakers, although community gatherings would require volume. Rather, they exhibit a sense of understanding which instruments complemented each other well. While the singing of the ancient Near East no doubt included chanting, singing with multiple instruments suggests something more melodious than mere chanting interspersed with the strumming of a lute. This music could be styled to fit different moods, to soothe, to celebrate, to mourn, to worship. It is reasonable to suggest that the music accompanying the psalms reflected the wide range of emotions mentioned in the text.

Dancing

The dancing mentioned in the Bible is usually celebratory and positive and is combined with singing or the playing of musical instruments. Such dancing may occur at any happy occasion but is mentioned most often in connection with victory or worship (e.g., Exod. 15:20; Judg. 11:34; 1 Sam. 18:6). The women of Shiloh “join in the dancing” (Judg. 21:21) at an annual festival, which implies some manner of folk dancing. The dancing of Herodias’s daughter probably was erotic (Matt. 14:6; Mark 6:22), and the dancing of the Israelites around the golden calf probably was laden with sensuality as well (Exod. 32:19).

Insult

Speech (2 Kings 19:16; Isa. 37:17) or gesture (2 Sam. 10:4) that shames, demeans, disrespects, abuses, offends, or slights someone. Insults in the biblical world were also part of propaganda and warfare; for example, Nabal hurled insults at David (1 Sam. 25:14; cf. Lam. 3:61–63). Divine wrath is implored for vengeance against those who insult God (2 Kings 19:22–23; Neh. 4:4; Ezek. 21:28; Zeph. 2:8), while responding in kind seems to be acceptable (Isa. 37:23), since, as the psalmist bemoans, insults directed at God include the psalmist too (Ps. 69:9). Romans 15:3 puts these sentiments in the mouth of Christ (cf. Ps. 22:7).

Jeremiah bewails insults directed at him for simply being a prophet (Jer. 20:8) and laments the desecration of the temple as an insult to God and his people (51:51). While prudence ignores insults and shows self-control (Prov. 12:16), correcting mockers invites insult (9:7; 22:10).

Jesus’ followers are to anticipate insults (Heb. 10:33) and even count them as blessings (Matt. 5:11; Luke 6:22) because they are partaking of what Jesus himself went through (Matt. 27:39; 27:44; Mark 15:29; 15:32; Luke 18:32; 23:39; 1 Pet. 4:14). But 1 Pet. 2:23; 3:9 discourage responding in kind when insulted. Paul, as part of his suffering (1 Thess. 2:2), even delighted in insults for Christ’s sake (2 Cor. 12:10). Discriminating against the poor is an insult to them (James 2:6), while insulting the Spirit of grace results in divine judgment (Heb. 10:29).

Insurrection

A revolt against governmental authority. David leads an insurrection against Saul (1 Sam. 19–31; see 2 Sam. 18). Barabbas, the prisoner whom Pilate releases in response to the crowd seeking Jesus’ crucifixion, probably is a terrorist captured during another insurrection (Mark 15:7; Luke 23:19, 25). In Acts, the Pharisee Gamaliel mentions an insurrection led by Judas the Galilean against Rome (Acts 5:37), and a Roman army officer asks Paul, “Aren’t you the Egyptian who started a revolt and led four thousand terrorists out into the desert some time ago?” (21:38). Josephus describes several rebellions, which culminated in the first Jewish War (AD 66–70).

Integrity

A quality of completeness or uprightness; often it is expressed in terms of someone being “blameless.” However it does not, as the English word implies, suggest sinlessness. In biblical thought, integrity is grounded not in a list of character traits but rather in one’s relationship to God. Single-minded devotion to God is the environment in which integrity flourishes (1 Kings 9:4–5).

Scripture describes certain individuals as displaying integrity. Noah is “a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked faithfully with God” (Gen. 6:9). The narrator describes Job as “blameless and upright,” someone who “feared God and shunned evil” (Job 1:1, 8). Jesus is identified as a “man of integrity” (NIV) or “truthful” (NASB) by some Pharisaic questioners (Matt. 22:16; Mark 12:14).

Paul repeatedly defends his own integrity to his churches when he is under attack by his opponents (2 Cor. 1:12; 1 Thess. 2:1–12) and encourages Titus to teach with integrity (Titus 2:7). He instructs both Timothy and Titus that church leaders must be “above reproach,” “sincere,” and “blameless”—that is, people of integrity (1 Tim. 3:2–10; Titus 1:6–8).

Intercede

The act of advocating before the powerful on someone’s behalf (Gen. 23:8–9), especially turning to God in prayer to seek God’s favor for others in crisis (2 Sam. 12:16). While it is a prerogative of prophets (Gen. 20:7; Num. 12; Amos 7:1–6), priests (Ezra 6:9–10), and kings (1 Chron. 21:17; 2 Chron. 30:18; Jer. 26:19), intercession is a ministry that belongs to all the people of God (Acts 12:5; Eph. 6:18; 1 Tim. 2:1; James 5:16).

Old Testament

Reflecting God’s own deliberative process (Gen. 1:26–27; 2:18), our creation in God’s image implies and makes possible our genuine conversation, participation, and even disputation with God. A biblical understanding of God’s rule accommodates this divine-human dialogue and the intertwined roles of both parties. People request intercession for themselves (1 Kings 13:6; Acts 8:24), but Scripture highlights God’s initiative.

In Gen. 18 God invites (even provokes) Abraham’s intercession by confiding in Abraham, reviewing the divine promises, and disclosing the guilt and impending doom of Sodom and Gomorrah. On behalf of righteous persons who may live there, Abraham appeals boldly to God’s own “justice” (mishpat) in distinguishing the innocent from the guilty, and he successfully negotiates God’s pledge to spare the city if even ten righteous persons can be found there. Without disputing the allegations of wickedness, Abraham puts God’s just response on the table as well.

Similarly, in Exod. 32 God informs Moses of the Israelites’ sin with the golden calf and his own intention to destroy them and start over with Moses. In response, Moses intercedes, arguing that God’s deliverance of Israel, and the likelihood of its being misconstrued by Egypt, should trump divine anger. Moses urges a different course of action: turn from anger, relent, and do not bring the announced disaster. The destruction of Israel would be inconsistent with God’s own commitment to multiply the people of Israel and give them the land as their inheritance (cf. Num. 14:13–29). The issue for Moses is not only Israel’s sin but also the rightness of God’s response in faithfulness to his purposes.

In Job’s intercession for his friends, God dictates the entire process, directing the friends to make offerings and assigning Job the task of interceding for them. God makes his own vindication the central issue: Eliphaz and friends have not said “the truth” (nekonah) of God, as Job had (Job 42:7–10).

These three narratives highlight God’s initiative and make God’s character the grounds for intercession. They also introduce the potential pain borne by the intercessor. For example, Moses dramatizes his passionate concern for God’s cause by falling down before God and lying prostrate forty days and nights (Deut. 9:13–29). He so identifies his own destiny with Israel’s as to offer himself as “atonement,” saying, “Please forgive their sin—but if not, then blot me out of the book you have written” (Exod. 32:32). This anticipates later prophets’ participation in the sorrow of God and the pain of the people’s separation from God (Jer. 15; cf. Luke 13:34–35; 19:41–44).

New Testament

In the Gospels, Jesus heals by command, without explicit reference to intercession, and in this way remarkably transcends the OT prophets (1 Kings 17:19–21). Although he does ask his Father to forgive his crucifiers (Luke 23:34), the Gospels emphasize Jesus’ intercession for his disciples, such as for Simon Peter to survive Satan’s assaults on his faith (22:31–32). John 17 comprises an extended intercession of Jesus for his disciples—significantly, that the Father will protect them in a hostile world. Moreover, Christ promises to acknowledge faithful disciples before the Father (Matt. 10:32), an action formally close to intercession, and that Christ performs as mediator of the Father’s kingdom and salvation.

Paul’s prayer for his fellow Israelites to be saved is fueled by anguish over their unbelief (Rom. 9:1–3; 10:1–4). Mirroring this is “the pressure of concern” he feels for all the churches and for the welfare of their members (2 Cor. 11:28–29), hence the prominent role of prayer in Paul’s ministry (see the thanksgivings that open his letters [e.g., Phil. 1:3–11]). Intercession per se, as prayer that others be spared or delivered from crisis, is seen in the churches’ prayers for Paul’s deliverance from prison and death (Phil. 1:19; 2 Thess. 3:2–3; cf. Rom. 15:31).

The NT extends the Gospel portrayals to reveal Christ as our heavenly intercessor, a role made possible by the cross and resurrection. In Rom. 8:34–39 Christ’s death, resurrection, and reign “at the right hand of God” ground Paul’s confidence that Christ’s intercession assures victory over condemnation and all opposition. The work of Christ our high priest (Heb. 7:25) may be summed up as intercession, echoing Isa. 53:12. Accordingly, “Jesus Christ the Righteous One” not only advocates before the Father for the forgiveness of our sins but also is their atoning sacrifice (1 John 2:1–2). In these texts, Christ’s heavenly intercession implements the saving purposes of God made real in the cross. Moreover, the work of Christ as prophet, priest, and king implies the central role of intercession, since intercession is a function of each of these offices.

Thus God’s initiative in intercession is intensified in the NT: God’s self-giving through Christ is the foundation of an ongoing heavenly intercession that in turn gives the church increased confidence to intercede boldly. Further, God’s Spirit helps us in our weakness by interceding for us in accord with God’s will, even if we experience that intercession as “wordless groans” (Rom. 8:26–28).

Intercession

The act of advocating before the powerful on someone’s behalf (Gen. 23:8–9), especially turning to God in prayer to seek God’s favor for others in crisis (2 Sam. 12:16). While it is a prerogative of prophets (Gen. 20:7; Num. 12; Amos 7:1–6), priests (Ezra 6:9–10), and kings (1 Chron. 21:17; 2 Chron. 30:18; Jer. 26:19), intercession is a ministry that belongs to all the people of God (Acts 12:5; Eph. 6:18; 1 Tim. 2:1; James 5:16).

Old Testament

Reflecting God’s own deliberative process (Gen. 1:26–27; 2:18), our creation in God’s image implies and makes possible our genuine conversation, participation, and even disputation with God. A biblical understanding of God’s rule accommodates this divine-human dialogue and the intertwined roles of both parties. People request intercession for themselves (1 Kings 13:6; Acts 8:24), but Scripture highlights God’s initiative.

In Gen. 18 God invites (even provokes) Abraham’s intercession by confiding in Abraham, reviewing the divine promises, and disclosing the guilt and impending doom of Sodom and Gomorrah. On behalf of righteous persons who may live there, Abraham appeals boldly to God’s own “justice” (mishpat) in distinguishing the innocent from the guilty, and he successfully negotiates God’s pledge to spare the city if even ten righteous persons can be found there. Without disputing the allegations of wickedness, Abraham puts God’s just response on the table as well.

Similarly, in Exod. 32 God informs Moses of the Israelites’ sin with the golden calf and his own intention to destroy them and start over with Moses. In response, Moses intercedes, arguing that God’s deliverance of Israel, and the likelihood of its being misconstrued by Egypt, should trump divine anger. Moses urges a different course of action: turn from anger, relent, and do not bring the announced disaster. The destruction of Israel would be inconsistent with God’s own commitment to multiply the people of Israel and give them the land as their inheritance (cf. Num. 14:13–29). The issue for Moses is not only Israel’s sin but also the rightness of God’s response in faithfulness to his purposes.

In Job’s intercession for his friends, God dictates the entire process, directing the friends to make offerings and assigning Job the task of interceding for them. God makes his own vindication the central issue: Eliphaz and friends have not said “the truth” (nekonah) of God, as Job had (Job 42:7–10).

These three narratives highlight God’s initiative and make God’s character the grounds for intercession. They also introduce the potential pain borne by the intercessor. For example, Moses dramatizes his passionate concern for God’s cause by falling down before God and lying prostrate forty days and nights (Deut. 9:13–29). He so identifies his own destiny with Israel’s as to offer himself as “atonement,” saying, “Please forgive their sin—but if not, then blot me out of the book you have written” (Exod. 32:32). This anticipates later prophets’ participation in the sorrow of God and the pain of the people’s separation from God (Jer. 15; cf. Luke 13:34–35; 19:41–44).

New Testament

In the Gospels, Jesus heals by command, without explicit reference to intercession, and in this way remarkably transcends the OT prophets (1 Kings 17:19–21). Although he does ask his Father to forgive his crucifiers (Luke 23:34), the Gospels emphasize Jesus’ intercession for his disciples, such as for Simon Peter to survive Satan’s assaults on his faith (22:31–32). John 17 comprises an extended intercession of Jesus for his disciples—significantly, that the Father will protect them in a hostile world. Moreover, Christ promises to acknowledge faithful disciples before the Father (Matt. 10:32), an action formally close to intercession, and that Christ performs as mediator of the Father’s kingdom and salvation.

Paul’s prayer for his fellow Israelites to be saved is fueled by anguish over their unbelief (Rom. 9:1–3; 10:1–4). Mirroring this is “the pressure of concern” he feels for all the churches and for the welfare of their members (2 Cor. 11:28–29), hence the prominent role of prayer in Paul’s ministry (see the thanksgivings that open his letters [e.g., Phil. 1:3–11]). Intercession per se, as prayer that others be spared or delivered from crisis, is seen in the churches’ prayers for Paul’s deliverance from prison and death (Phil. 1:19; 2 Thess. 3:2–3; cf. Rom. 15:31).

The NT extends the Gospel portrayals to reveal Christ as our heavenly intercessor, a role made possible by the cross and resurrection. In Rom. 8:34–39 Christ’s death, resurrection, and reign “at the right hand of God” ground Paul’s confidence that Christ’s intercession assures victory over condemnation and all opposition. The work of Christ our high priest (Heb. 7:25) may be summed up as intercession, echoing Isa. 53:12. Accordingly, “Jesus Christ the Righteous One” not only advocates before the Father for the forgiveness of our sins but also is their atoning sacrifice (1 John 2:1–2). In these texts, Christ’s heavenly intercession implements the saving purposes of God made real in the cross. Moreover, the work of Christ as prophet, priest, and king implies the central role of intercession, since intercession is a function of each of these offices.

Thus God’s initiative in intercession is intensified in the NT: God’s self-giving through Christ is the foundation of an ongoing heavenly intercession that in turn gives the church increased confidence to intercede boldly. Further, God’s Spirit helps us in our weakness by interceding for us in accord with God’s will, even if we experience that intercession as “wordless groans” (Rom. 8:26–28).

Interest

The practice of loaning money with interest was common in the ancient Near East, but Israelites under the Mosaic covenant were prohibited from charging interest to their kinfolk. Lending with interest was permissible in commercial transactions with foreigners but was forbidden in all cases among Israelites, “on money or food or anything else that may earn interest” (Deut. 23:19–20). This ban on interest protected the poor from being exploited by creditors. Leviticus 25:36–37 stresses the moral responsibility of Israelites to fear God and help their poor kinfolk rather than take advantage of them by exacting interest or profit (cf. Exod. 22:25; Neh. 5:7).

The Prophets and the Writings reinforce this prohibition against taking interest from fellow Israelites. Ezekiel alludes several times to Lev. 25:36 by combining these same Hebrew words for “interest” (neshek) and “profit” (tarbit). He says that taking interest and profit is a detestable practice deserving of death (Ezek. 18:13), a sign that a person has forgotten God (22:12). Proverbs 28:8 illustrates the folly of amassing wealth by interest or profit, while Ps. 15:5 highlights the God-given security for those who do not lend with interest.

In Jesus’ parable of the talents he references the common first-century practice of putting money on deposit with bankers to accumulate interest (Matt. 25:27; Luke 19:23), which offered a modest return with minimal financial risk. It appears that such business loans were not seen as violating the earlier biblical prohibitions.

Interpersonal

Interpersonal conflicts are found throughout the Scripture, having begun when sin entered the world at the fall of humankind. One of the earliest recorded interpersonal conflicts was that between Cain and Abel (Gen. 4:2–9). Both presented sacrifice to God, who looked with favor on Abel’s sacrifice (v. 4) but was not pleased with Cain’s (v. 5). When Cain responded with anger, God warned him, “If you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it” (v. 7). Unfortunately, Cain did not heed this warning, and eventually he killed Abel in the field, becoming the first murderer.

A notable interpersonal conflict in the NT was that between Paul and Barnabas, who had a “sharp disagreement” over whether to take John Mark on their second missionary journey, eventually resulting in their parting of ways (Acts 15:36–41). Fortunately, resolution eventually took place, and in 2 Tim. 4:11 Paul calls for Timothy to bring Mark to Rome with him “because he is helpful to me in my ministry.” Another interpersonal conflict is seen in Phil. 4:23, where Paul appeals to a leader in the church at Philippi to help resolve a conflict between two women, Euodia and Syntyche.

A key principle for the resolution of personal conflict appears in Matt. 5:23–24, where Jesus states, “If you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift.” Reconciliation of relationships is made an even higher priority than offering sacrifices. We cannot be in a right relationship with God if we are in constant conflict with other people.

Interpret

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

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

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

The Development of Hermeneutics

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

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

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

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

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

Elements of an Effective Hermeneutic

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

Linguistics

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

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

Literature and Literary Theory

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

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

History

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

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

Humility and the Attitude of the Reader

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

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

Unique Features of Biblical Interpretation

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interpretation

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

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

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

The Development of Hermeneutics

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

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

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

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

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

Elements of an Effective Hermeneutic

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

Linguistics

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

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

Literature and Literary Theory

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

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

History

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

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

Humility and the Attitude of the Reader

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

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

Unique Features of Biblical Interpretation

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

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

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

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

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

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

Intertestamental Period

The name given to the historical period between the Old and New Testaments (fifth century BC–first century AD). It is also known as the Second Temple period. The first Jewish temple, completed by Solomon around 960 BC, was destroyed by the Babylonians in 587/586 BC. The second temple, completed by Zerubbabel in 516 BC (and expanded later by Herod the Great), was eventually destroyed by the Romans in AD 70. The intertestamental period is roughly, then, the period from the return of the Babylonian exile to the dawn of the Christian era.

The exile of the Israelites to Babylon marks a turning point in the history of redemption. Prior to this experience God’s people were constantly tempted to worship other gods. During the exile the majority appear to have abandoned their faith. Only a small remnant ever returned to the promised land.

They rebuilt the city of Jerusalem. The Torah became their constitution, but the expectations of the biblical prophets were not fulfilled. When the temple was opened, there is no mention of a return of the visible presence of God. The rabbinic tradition would later observe that “after the later prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi had died, the Holy Spirit departed from Israel” (b. Yoma 9b), implying that God had fallen silent. Nevertheless, the Hebrew canon closes offering the hope of forgiveness and restoration (cf. 2 Chron. 7:14).

During this period there were significant Jewish communities in Persia, Babylon, and Egypt. They formed assemblies, or “synagogues,” as centers of Jewish community and faith. The Jews in Egypt built a temple at Aswan, on the island of Elephantine. In their letters they claimed that this temple had existed before the days of Cambyses (late sixth century BC).

They were particularly challenged by the worship of idols, the threat of persecution, and the difficulties of observing the laws of separation, especially the food laws and the ban on mixed marriages. We have very little extracanonical Jewish literature of the Persian period. We do have a series of stories, difficult to date, that look back to the time of Jeremiah (Letter of Jeremiah) or Daniel (Susanna; Bel and the Dragon; Prayer of Azariah; Song of the Three Young Men). See Apocrypha, Old Testament.

Greek Rule (333–63 BC)

After defeating the Persians at the Battle of Issus (333 BC), Alexander the Great swept through Palestine on his way to Egypt. His early death (323 BC) led to a series of wars between his four generals. Eventually, Seleucus controlled Babylon and ruled from Syria to India, while Ptolemy was declared Pharaoh (301 BC) and ruled Palestine from Egypt.

The Ptolemies developed a strongly Greek culture in Egypt. Alexandria became a world center of learning. Ptolemy II Philadelphus (r. 287–247 BC) sponsored the translation of the Torah into Greek. This coincided with the gradual translation of the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures (the Septuagint). Under the Ptolemies, the Jews colonized Galilee, bypassing Samaria and reclaiming the north for “Israel.”

The Jews in Egypt struggled to win equality and respect for their traditions. Some simply abandoned their Jewish distinctives. Others attempted to win respect through wise business enterprises. Some Jews entered the academy and attempted to explain Jewish traditions by using the categories and values of the Greek philosophers, minimizing the differences (Letter of Aristeas; Sibylline Oracles, book 3). Others argued for the priority and superiority of the Jewish tradition, claiming that Greek and Egyptian learning could be traced back to God’s revelation through Moses and the patriarchs. Any attempt to rigorously maintain the distinctives of the Jewish faith and observance of the law of Moses remained the agenda of a small minority (cf. 3 Maccabees; Additions to Esther).

During the third century BC tensions between the Seleucids and the Ptolemies grew, and Jews in Palestine became involved in these intrigues. The high priest Simon II (219–196 BC) used to pay the provincial taxes to Ptolemy out of his own means.

Ben Sira (died 175 BC) ran a school in Jerusalem. He pointed his students to the wisdom of the Jewish Scriptures rather than Greek philosophy. Some time after 117 BC his grandson translated his work into Greek (the book of Sirach).

The family of Tobijah, who opposed Nehemiah, had become rich and powerful and married into the family of the high priest. When Simon’s son Onias became high priest, he refused to pay Ptolemy’s tax. So Joseph Tobiad, Onias’s nephew, paid the tax and won the contract to collect the taxes of Judah. His youngest son, Hyrcanus, outbid his father and so started a family feud. Joseph worked for the Seleucids, while Hyrcanus remained loyal to Ptolemy.

After a series of wars the Seleucids defeated the Ptolemies (198 BC). A steady flow of Jews migrated to Egypt. Initially, Antiochus III (r. 221–187 BC) issued a decree granting certain privileges to the Jews and funded the repairs to Jerusalem necessitated by the wars. Following his defeat by the Romans (190 BC), his son Antiochus became a Roman hostage, and he was required to pay a huge tribute. He decided to loot the temple in Jerusalem. He died in Babylon while looting the temple of Bel. Seleucus IV (r. 187–175 BC) sent his son to Rome in exchange for his brother Antiochus and made another raid on the Jerusalem temple for funds. In 175 BC Antiochus overthrew his brother and took the throne as Antiochus IV Epiphanes (“God made visible”).

Somewhere during this period works started to appear claiming to be the writings of Enoch and Noah. According to these works, Gentile nations were empowered by demons operating through idols. Gentile religion and culture arose from their deceptions. God had revealed to Enoch and Noah the secrets needed to counter these deceptions. This involved the adoption of a distinctive 364-day calendar. As this tradition developed, other works appeared that incorporated these ideas into a rereading of the Scriptures. Both the book of Jubilees (c. 168–150 BC), which cites the writings of Enoch and Noah as authentic, and the Temple Scroll claim to be a second revelation given to Moses on Mount Sinai—a revelation for the chosen righteous of the last days. Other books had been passed on to Abraham, Jacob, and eventually Levi. While Israel had failed to keep “the first law,” this body of revelation claimed to enable the elect to rightly interpret the law, survive the coming judgment, and gain possession of the whole earth.

At about this time also we hear of the rise of the “pious ones” (Hasidim) indicating a widespread stirring of heart and a seeking after God (1 Macc. 2:42; 7:12–18). The additional stories contained in 1 Esdras may reflect some of the concerns of this time. The difficulty was to know the right way back among so many competing voices.

The Hasmoneans (168–63 BC)

When Antiochus IV took the throne (175 BC), Jason, brother of the high priest Onias III, offered the king money to make himself high priest instead and to declare Jerusalem a Greek city. The king agreed, and when Onias III died, his son Onias IV fled to Egypt, where, inspired by the prophesy of Isa. 19:19, he built a temple at Leontopolis.

The Tobiads and most of the wealthier Jewish nobility, including many priests, were deeply committed to Greek culture, educating their sons in the Greek gymnasium, which involved nudity and homosexuality and making offerings to Zeus. This hugely offended Jews who were focused on returning Israel to God’s favor.

Ezekiel had stated that only men descended from Zadok could officiate as priests (Ezek. 40:46). Menelaus offered the king more money and replaced Jason. From this point onward, the office of high priest would be up for sale. Menelaus was not descended from Zadok, and his appointment was widely recognized as corruption. He began selling temple vessels to raise money.

Meanwhile, Antiochus had embarked on two failed attempts to conquer Egypt (170 and 168 BC) and had raided the Jerusalem temple for funds. While he was away, Jason, believing that Antiochus had been killed, attacked Menelaus and tried to regain the high priesthood. Antiochus had been humiliated in front of his troops when Rome ordered him to leave Egypt, and he was in financial trouble. So when, upon his return, riots broke out in Jerusalem, he took excessive measures. After his departure the rioting resumed, and he determined to put an end to Judaism.

He desecrated the temple by sacrificing a pig to Zeus on the altar (cf. Dan. 9:27). The Scriptures were banned. Parents who circumcised a son were executed along with the boy. His cruelty and excesses are recorded in gruesome detail in 1–2 Maccabees (esp. 2 Macc. 7).

The king’s officials began to force the citizens to offer sacrifice to Zeus. When they came to the village of Modein, a priest, Mattathias of the family of Hasmon, killed the king’s officials and those who had obeyed them and fled with his five sons. A revolt ensued, and within three years the Seleucids were defeated. It took another twenty years before an independent Jewish state was established (October 20, 142 BC).

Following Mattathias’s death, his son Judas (nicknamed “Maccabeus,” meaning “the hammer”) led the revolt. Jerusalem was recaptured and the temple cleansed (164 BC), an event still celebrated as the Feast of Hanukkah (Lights). When Antiochus was killed fighting the Persians, the Seleucids restored Jewish freedom and executed Menelaus. The new king, Demetrius, attempted to appoint Alcimus as high priest. Hostilities intensified, and Judas, who had concluded a treaty with Rome, was killed in battle (c. 160 BC). His brother Jonathan, not a Zadokite, took over and became high priest (152 BC). The Jewish historian Josephus’s first mention of the Essenes, the Pharisees, and the Sadducees occurs during his reign.

The Sadducees were predominantly priests who, while advocating their own interpretations of the law, were increasingly more concerned with power and money. They rejected predestination in favor of human free will and denied the existence of angels and the resurrection.

The Pharisees based their interpretation of the law on the traditions of their forebears, which they claimed could be traced back to oral law given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai. They accepted predestination, angels, and bodily resurrection. Coming from the middle and lower classes, the Pharisees had popular support and were active in teaching the law in the synagogues.

Since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, a scholarly consensus has grown that identifies the Qumran sect as being part of the group called the “Essenes” by Josephus, Philo, and Pliny. As such, their roots can be traced back to Jewish exiles in Damascus (CD-A 6:5) who adopted the teachings of the early Enoch literature and entered into what they called the “new covenant” to repent and rightly live by the law. Under the leadership of one called the “Teacher of Righteousness,” they returned to Judea following the Hasmonean takeover of Jerusalem.

Initially, many, such as the author of the Animal Apocalypse (1 En. 90:9–19), saw the Hasmonean revolt as God’s intervention. The appointment of Jonathan as high priest produced two strong reactions. The Sadducees and the Pharisees vied for the favor of the Hasmoneans, while the Essenes declared the Hasmonean high priesthood illegitimate and abandoned worship in the temple.

When Jonathan was murdered (142 BC), his brother Simon took over, and Jewish freedom from Seleucid control was finally established. In September of 140 BC the Jewish leadership decreed that Simon would have total control of Judaism, including the final say in all matters regarding the correct observance of the law (1 Macc. 14:25–47). Groups that followed any other interpretation of the law would face his sanctions. It is not clear how rigorously he used these powers.

Among the Essenes, the group that followed the Teacher of Righteousness suffered internal division, and the “Man of the Lie” led a significant number to turn back and “depart from the Way” (see 1QpHab 2:1–4; 5:6–12; 10:6–9; CD-B 20:10–15).

Simon’s act of uniformity was designed to unite the Jewish faithful against those who had abandoned the faith and gone over to the Greeks, but the Jewish faithful were not united. The high priest had to choose sides. Those who dissented were bound to live in the political “wilderness.”

In 134 BC the Seleucids invaded Judea, and Simon was murdered. The high priesthood passed to his son John Hyrcanus I (135–104 BC), who made peace with the Seleucids. He captured Samaria (129 BC), destroyed the Samaritan temple, and forced the Samaritans to adopt the Jewish lifestyle. He appears to have extended greater tolerance within Judaism, but he was opposed by the Pharisees.

It was during this period that the Essenes were able to establish their facility at Qumran. There scholars collected, copied, and composed books that would later become known as the Dead Sea Scrolls. This library contained all the books of the OT (with the probable exception of Esther). Works attributed to Enoch, Noah, Levi, and the patriarchs as well as Jubilees and the Temple Scroll constituted a second body of written revelation. There were works claiming to be inspired commentaries on the Scriptures, hymns possibly written by the Teacher of Righteousness, and rules governing communal lifestyle and worship. We also find copies of Sirach and Tobit. The Testament of Moses and Psalms of Solomon, though not found among the DSS, may well have originated in groups influenced by this tradition.

Qumran was the academic center for Essene scholarship and training. It also functioned as something of a Sanhedrin in exile. Essenes believed that the exile had not ended, and their way of keeping the law was the only way of salvation. They vehemently opposed the Pharisees and the Sadducees.

The Idumeans were the descendants of Esau, known in the OT as Edomites. Nabatean Arabs had moved into their territory southeast of Judea and driven them out. In 164 BC Judas Maccabeus had opposed their advance (1 Macc. 4:61). They now appealed for acceptance within the southern borders of Judea, and John Hyrcanus agreed on condition that they convert to Judaism.

When John’s son Aristobulus I (104–103 BC) became high priest, he had himself declared king as well as high priest. He extended Hasmonean rule into Galilee.

Among Jewish works of this time, the book of Judith presents the plight of pious Israelites in the guise of a godly woman. Laced with humor and irony, it depicts the horror of Gentile power against the wisdom and beauty of a woman who manages to decapitate the enemy. The book of Baruch echoes much of Sirach, but it is difficult to date. The book of 1 Maccabees was written to defend the claims of the Hasmonean dynasty. It tells the story of events during the years 200–135 BC. Jason of Cyrene then wrote a history to refute Hasmonean claims while still celebrating the accomplishments of the family in freeing the Jews from Greek domination. Later his work would be abridged and appear as 2 Maccabees, focusing closely on the Maccabean wars (175–162 BC).

The Pharisees opposed the next king, Alexander Jannaeus, also known as King Jonathan (r. 103–76 BC). When he appeared drunk in the temple, the crowd pelted him with lemons, and he sent in his troops, resulting in a massacre (Josephus, Ant. 13.372–73). He crucified eight hundred Pharisees, slaughtering their families before their eyes. When he died, his wife, Alexandra Salome (r. 76–67 BC), supported the Pharisees and was more conciliatory toward the Samaritans. Her eldest son, Hyrcanus II, became high priest. The Sadducees backed her younger son, Aristobulus II, who rebelled and claimed both the throne and the high priesthood. At this point the struggle between Pharisees and Sadducees developed into open warfare.

Roman Rule (63 BC to the Birth of Jesus)

After initial setbacks, Hyrcanus II obtained the support of Antipater, the governor of Idumea. Antipater was an ambitious man, well placed with the Romans. He called upon the Arabian king Aretas for help, and together they defeated Aristobulus II in 65 BC. When the Roman general Pompey defeated the last Seleucid king and made Syria a Roman province, Aristobulus and Hyrcanus went to him. Pompey sided with Hyrcanus, and the supporters of Aristobulus were finally routed from the temple (63 BC). Priests were slaughtered in the fighting. Aristobulus and his supporters went as prisoners to Rome. Thus ended the independent Jewish state established by the Maccabees in 142 BC. Pompey then ordered the cleansing of the temple and the reinstitution of the sacrifices and the priesthood. Hyrcanus II served as high priest until his death (40 BC).

The Roman Empire soon entered a period of civil war as the republic came to an end, with Julius Caesar defeating Pompey (48 BC). Just in time, Antipater and Hyrcanus switched sides and appealed to Caesar to forgive their initial alliance with Pompey, which he did. Antipater was appointed procurator of Judea, and Hyrcanus II was confirmed as high priest.

Antipater appointed his son Herod as governor of Galilee, in which position he quickly had to deal with a bandit, Ezekiel, who terrorized the area. With the defeat of these criminals (46 BC), Herod won the favor of the Galilean people.

Overall administration of Palestine came under the rule of the governor of Syria, Sextus Caesar. In 46 BC Hyrcanus brought Herod to trial before the Sanhedrin in an attempt to limit his power to interfere with Jewish lifestyle and law, but the Syrian governor intervened, and the high priest had to back down. Herod then moved his administration to Damascus.

Back in Rome, having murdered Julius Caesar (44 BC), Cassius set up his headquarters in Damascus and promised to make Herod king of Judea in return for his support against Caesar’s heir, Octavian. In 42 BC Mark Antony defeated Cassius. Meanwhile, Herod maintained law and order in Judea, for which the people were genuinely grateful, but he continued to struggle with the Sanhedrin, which made unsuccessful attempts to have him removed.

In 40 BC Persia took the opportunity presented by Rome’s civil wars to invade Judea, entering into alliance with the last Hasmonean, Antigonus. Herod fled while Antigonus was taken to Persia. Herod returned to Palestine in 38 BC with Roman troops and quickly captured Galilee and Jerusalem. With the execution of Antigonus, the Hasmonean dynasty was finished. Herod then married Mariamne, the niece of Antigonus, hoping that this would give him some legitimacy as king of Judea and win him some popular support.

The Pharisees continued to reject him as a non-Jewish collaborator with the Romans. When the last male heir of the Hasmonean dynasty died (25 BC), Herod’s mother-in-law, Alexandra, forced Herod to appoint her sixteen-year-old son, Aristobulus, as high priest. After the boy drowned in Herod’s swimming pool, Alexandra had Herod called before Mark Antony for trial. He was exonerated.

When Octavian and Mark Antony went to war, Herod was caught in the middle. Herod’s enemies, with Cleopatra’s support, attacked but were driven back. With Antony’s defeat and the death of Cleopatra, Herod went to Rhodes to reassure Octavian (Caesar Augustus) of his loyalty and was confirmed again as king of Judea. Upon his return, he accused his wife of adultery, and she was promptly executed, followed shortly by her mother.

Herod then went on a building spree of enormous proportions extending beyond the borders of Judea, attempting to impress both his subjects and Caesar. He built temples for Caesar and also started work on a massive renovation and rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem. As his wives and sons began to position themselves to inherit the throne, he became fearful of assassination and had many of his family executed.

Herod died in 4 BC. His execution of the infant boys of Bethlehem (Matt. 2:16–18) was one of the last acts of his reign, consistent with his increasingly desperate attempts to keep the throne.

Iob

The name “Iob,” which appears in the Hebrew text of Gen. 46:13, is corrected to “Jashub” in some versions (NIV, NRSV, NET), following the Samaritan Pentateuch, some LXX manuscripts, and the Hebrew text of parallel lists (Num. 26:24; 1 Chron. 7:1). See also Jashub.

Iota

The RSV and REB use “dot” to translate the Greek word keraia in Matt. 5:18 (NIV: “the smallest letter”), where Jesus says that not the smallest part of a letter of the law will pass away.

Iphdeiah

One of the sons of Shashak of the tribe of Benjamin (1 Chron. 8:25).

Iphedeiah

One of the sons of Shashak of the tribe of Benjamin (1 Chron. 8:25).

Iphtah

One of the towns allotted to Judah under Joshua (Josh. 15:43). Its exact location is uncertain, though it lay in the “western foothills” (the Shephelah) of Judah (15:33). A proposed identification is Tarqumiya, located about six miles northwest of Hebron.

Iphtah El

A valley on the northern border of the tribe of Zebulun (Josh. 19:14, 27).

Ir

A descendant of the tribe of Benjamin and the forefather of the Shuppites and the Huppites (1 Chron. 7:12). See also Iri.

Ir Nahash

A city of Judah (KJV, NRSV: “Irnahash”) whose location is uncertain, though it has been identified variously with Deir Nahhas near Beit Gibrin, Khirbet Nahash south of the Dead Sea, or in the hill country between Bethlehem and Hebron. The term apparently is treated as a personal name in the genealogy of the sons of Caleb (1 Chron. 4:12), where Tehinnah is identified as the father of Ir Nahash. Most scholars, however, consider it to be a place name, since other names in the list identify individuals with the places they founded—for example, “Ephrathah the father of Bethlehem” (4:4 KJV). The LXX also interprets the term this way, translating the Hebrew as “city of Naas.”

Ir Shemesh

A city in the tribal territory of Dan that appears only in Josh. 19:41. The name “Ir Shemesh” (“city of the sun”) is an alternate for “Beth Shemesh” (“house of the sun”), located in the foothills approximately sixteen miles west of Jerusalem.

Ira

(1) A Jairite and a priest during David’s time (2 Sam. 20:26). Some consider this position to be civil rather than religious, a chief adviser or minister. Others view the role as one of personal priest to David, a kind of palace chaplain. (2) A Tekoite, one of David’s mighty men and a member of an elite group of thirty warriors (2 Sam. 23:26; 1 Chron. 11:28). Ira the Tekoite also served as captain of a division of twenty-four thousand men who served as Israel’s national defense forces for the sixth month of each year (1 Chron. 27:9). (3) An Ithrite, another of David’s mighty men (2 Sam. 23:38; 1 Chron. 11:40).

Irad

The son of Enoch and the grandson of Cain (Gen. 4:18).

Iram

A descendant of Esau, he was a leader of an Edomite clan who gave his name to the territory he occupied (Gen. 36:43; 1 Chron. 1:54).

Iri

The head of a family in the tribe of Benjamin, mentioned only in 1 Chron. 7:7, where he is identified among “mighty warriors” (ESV, NRSV, RSV). His name is spelled “Ir” in 1 Chron. 7:12.

Irijah

The son of Shelemiah, he served as the captain of the guard under Zedekiah king of Judah (Jer. 37:13). After Jeremiah prophesied the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem, he started to leave the city in order to receive his share of the property in Benjamin. However, Irijah saw Jeremiah at the Benjamin Gate and accused him of deserting the people and joining the Babylonians. Based on this faulty assumption, Irijah arrested Jeremiah and brought him before the officials, who subsequently beat the prophet and placed him in prison (37:13–15).

Iron

(1) Sometimes transliterated “Yiron” (NASB, RSV, TEV, NET), “Iron” is the name of a town in the tribal inheritance of Naphtali (Josh. 19:38). It is likely to be identified with the modern city of Yaroun, on the border between Israel and Lebanon.

(2) A malleable metal derived from oxide ores that can be worked into wrought iron and steel. The earliest use of iron dates to the late fourth millennium BC. Old Kingdom Egyptian refers to iron as the “metal of heaven,” probably because the earliest pieces of iron were derived from meteoric iron. Small quantities of smelted terrestrial iron have been found from the third millennium BC in Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Anatolia. Due to technological advancements and economic factors, iron gradually supplanted bronze as the main utilitarian metal in the Levant by the Iron Age (1200–586 BC).

Iron could be mined or found on the surface (Deut. 8:9), but it had to be heated and hammered to remove its impurities. Wrought iron was softer than hardened bronze, but through carburization, tempering, and quenching, iron became stronger and could hold an edge better than bronze. Since ancient furnaces could not get hot enough to liquefy iron, it could not be cast into molds.

The Bible makes several general references to the mining, smelting, and use of iron (Job 28:1; Isa. 44:12; Ezek. 22:20; Sir. 38:28). Genesis attributes the beginning of ironworking and other crafts to the legendary descendants of Cain (Gen. 4:22). The shift in dominance from bronze to iron in the late second millennium BC may have been due either to an international shortage of copper or a more localized shortage of the wood required for the fuel-intensive production of bronze. In Bible times, iron was forged (Isa. 44:12) rather than cast, as the high temperatures necessary to melt iron could not be achieved before the modern industrial age. Biblical references to iron furnaces pertain to smelting (Ezek. 22:20). While one passage describes the richness of the land of Canaan where, among other things, “rocks are iron” (Deut. 8:9), other passages associate ironworking with Egypt (Deut. 4:20; 1 Kings 8:51; Jer. 11:4) or Mesopotamia (Jer. 15:12). The Israelites perhaps lacked the skills to work in iron, as is suggested by the facts that ironworkers had to be brought into the country (2 Chron. 2:14) and at one point the Israelites were dependent on a Philistine monopoly on blacksmithing (1 Sam. 13:21).

Iron was used widely to make many different types of objects, including axes (Deut. 19:5; 2 Sam. 12:31; 2 Kings 6:5), tools for dressing stone (though this is prohibited for the making of altars [Deut. 27:5; Josh. 8:31]) and for engraving stone (Job 19:24; Jer. 17:1), yokes (Deut. 28:48; Jer. 28:13), shackles or chains (Pss. 105:18; 107:10; 149:8), pans (Ezek. 4:3), sharpening tools (Prov. 27:17; Eccles. 10:10), weapons (Num. 35:16; Job 20:24; Ps. 2:9), gate or door bolts (Deut. 33:25; Ps. 107:16), nails (1 Chron. 22:3), chariots (referring only to a part of the axle assembly rather than the entire vehicle [Josh. 17:16; Judg. 1:19]), otherwise unspecified vessels or implements (Josh. 6:19), and agricultural implements (1 Chron. 20:3; Amos 1:3 [archaeologists have also found plow points and other iron tools]). Amos 1:3 may also refer to the use of iron tools as instruments of torture in wartime. Among the uses of iron that may have been considered unusual for the time were for a bed frame (Deut. 3:11) and for horns (1 Kings 22:11).

Iron was valuable enough to be listed in lists of plunder and treasure, alongside gold and silver (Num. 31:22; Josh. 6:19; 1 Chron. 22:14). It was taken from Jericho and dedicated to God’s treasury (Josh. 6:24). David collected large quantities of iron to construct the temple; however, none of the stones for the temple or altar were cut with iron tools on-site (1 Kings 6:7). Iron was an internationally traded commodity (Ezek. 27:19). It was less valuable than gold, silver, and bronze (1 Chron. 29:7; Isa. 60:17; Dan. 2:33–35) but more valuable than lead and tin (Ezek. 22:20; 27:12).

Iron was a symbol of superlative strength (Job 40:18) and, in the moral realm, of stubbornness or rebelliousness (Isa. 48:4). The fiery smelting process represented testing, oppression, wrath, suffering, and drought (Lev. 26:19; Deut. 4:20; 1 Kings 8:51; Jer. 11:4; Ezek. 22:18–20). In contrast to untarnished gold, the corrosive oxidation of iron symbolized corruption (Jer. 6:28).

Ironsmith

Someone who works with iron, either in the smelting process or using tools to shape the metal. The term itself is not used in the KJV, NIV, or most other English versions, though the trade is referred to in various ways: “artisans,” “smiths,” “those who work with iron.” When preparing to build the temple, Solomon appealed to Hiram, king of Tyre, for “a man skilled to work in gold and silver, bronze and iron” (2 Chron. 2:7). King Joash and Jehoiada hired ironsmiths and other metalworkers, together with masons and carpenters, to restore the temple in Jerusalem (2 Chron. 24:12). Ironsmith was an important occupation during the biblical period because of the necessity for iron in both tools and weapons of warfare.

Irony

An instance when the intended meaning of an expression is the opposite of its ostensible meaning. Irony is often accompanied by sarcasm, as when Amos beckons Israel to go to their places of worship so that they may sin (Amos 4:4–5). Elijah sarcastically taunts the worshipers of Baal, “Shout louder! . . . Surely he [Baal] is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened” (1 Kings 18:27–29). Job utilizes irony when he tells his friends, “Doubtless you are the only people who matter, and wisdom will die with you!” (Job 12:2), and he receives an ironic expression when he is told by God, “Surely you know, for you were already born!” (38:21). Paul writes to the Corinthians, “We are fools for Christ, but you are so wise in Christ! We are weak, but you are strong! You are honored, we are dishonored!” (1 Cor. 4:10). A double irony may be seen in the expression “King of the Jews,” used by Roman soldiers to ridicule Jesus (Matt. 27:29) even while its ostensible meaning applies (Matt. 27:11). In narrative, irony may be evident to the reader without it being evident to the characters. For example, Cain’s question to God, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” (Gen. 4:9) begs a negative response from Cain’s perspective. Yet in view of other biblical passages involving the responsibilities of kin and God’s expectations regarding the community of his people, the answer to Cain’s question is resoundingly affirmative.

In addition to single utterances, irony can also involve a set of circumstances that share a relationship with one another that is the opposite of what is expected. Thinking that King Xerxes intends to honor him, Haman unwittingly advises the king to honor Mordecai even though he intended to request permission to kill Mordecai (Esther 5:9–13). After Haman suffers the humiliation of honoring Mordecai in the manner he fashioned for himself, Haman is executed on the very device he has erected to execute Mordecai (7:9–10). In the story of Joseph, the violent reaction by Joseph’s brothers to his dreams serves to bring about the circumstances that the dreams foretold (Gen. 37:19; 42:9). The ministry of Jesus may be viewed as inherently ironic (Phil. 2:6–11), as well as many of his teachings—for example, the last will be first (Matt. 20:16) and the least is the greatest (Luke 9:46–48). Those who orchestrate Jesus’ execution do so in order to stop his ministry, yet in effect they fulfill his messianic goal (Matt. 20:25–28; 26:1–4).

Irpeel

A town in the tribal allotment given to Benjamin (Josh. 18:27).

Irrigation

A set of techniques for artificially watering crops. Irrigation is the key to cultivating land in regions where direct rainfall is insufficient. While several of the ancient empires of the biblical world diverted water from large rivers (Nile, Tigris, Euphrates) to sustain large-scale intensive agriculture, the land of Israel was hilly, and thus irrigation was limited. Israelite agriculture relied on smaller irrigation works or direct rainfall, enhanced by other methods such as the terracing of hillsides.

In Canaanite religion, the dependence of the region on rainfall-based agriculture was reflected in the prominence of sky gods, such as Baal, who controlled the weather. In contrast, the civilizations of Mesopotamia and Egypt focused such attention on their great rivers (see Isa. 8:7, where the river represents the military power of Assyria against Judah). In Israelite religion, this power was attributed to the God of Israel (Deut. 11:11–12), so that he was a direct rival of Baal. For instance, Jeremiah rebukes the people for their failure to depend on Israel’s God, characterizing the proper attitude of the farmer: “Let us fear the Lord our God, who gives autumn and spring rains in season, who assures us of the regular weeks of harvest” (Jer. 5:24 [see also 1 Kings 17:1; 18:1; James 5:17–18]). Likewise, the prophet Isaiah promises, “The Lord will guide you always; he will satisfy your needs in a sun-scorched land and will strengthen your frame. You will be like a well-watered garden, like a spring whose waters never fail” (Isa. 58:11).

Consistent with this situation, Deuteronomy refers to irrigation as a way of contrasting Israelite and Egyptian agriculture: “The land you are entering to take over is not like the land of Egypt, from which you have come, where you planted your seed and irrigated it by foot as in a vegetable garden” (Deut. 11:10). Modern scholars see here a reference to a particular practice of irrigation in which workers controlled the flow of water through a field by manipulating a system of earthen channels and dams with their feet.

In addition to rainfall-based agriculture, groundwater coming from springs supported gardens and horticulture. Ecclesiastes 2:5–6 speaks of such royal gardens and waterworks: “I made gardens and parks and planted all kinds of fruit trees in them. I made reservoirs to water groves of flourishing trees” (cf. Isa. 58:11; Ezek. 47:12). Excavations in Jerusalem have confirmed the presence of irrigation works in the City of David, which probably diverted water into the Kidron Valley from the Gihon Spring.

To summarize, crops in biblical Israel were sustained by a combination of rainfall agriculture with small-scale irrigation sustaining horticulture (i.e., the production of vegetables in gardens, but not the intensive cultivation of staples such as grains). Perhaps this particular combination is best illustrated in Gen. 2:5–6: “No shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.” See also Cistern.

Iru

A son of Caleb, son of Jephunneh (1 Chron. 4:15). Since he is named first (his brothers were Elah and Naam), he was likely the oldest. Some scholars believe that his name was actually “Ir,” and that the u is actually the first letter of the next word (meaning “and”).

Isaac

Along with Abraham and Jacob, Isaac is a central character in the narratives of Gen. 12–35. Isaac is the offspring of Abraham and Sarah, the fulfillment of a promise from God of an heir for Abraham (15:4). The promise of offspring is one component in a set (protection and land being some of the others), the provisions of a covenant between God and the patriarchs (12:1–3; 17:1–8; 26:2–5). The name “Isaac” is associated with the verb for “laugh” (21:3–7), referring to Sarah’s reaction upon hearing the promise of a child coming well beyond her childbearing years (18:9–15). Sarah’s incredulity, and Abraham’s sympathy to it, may be witnessed by their attempt to enact fulfillment to the promise through the insemination of Hagar, Sarah’s slave (16:1–4, 16).

In the narratives of Gen. 12–35 Isaac is the least prominent of the patriarchs. The main event of his life is encapsulated in the incident known as the Akedah, the “binding” (22:1–19). Abraham demonstrates his loyalty to God by complying with a command to offer Isaac as a sacrifice on Mount Moriah. After an initial inquiry about the absence of a sacrificial beast, Isaac (apparently) passively follows Abraham’s directions in compliance with God’s will. A divine emissary, however, halts Abraham’s actions just prior to the slaying of Isaac.

The procurement of Isaac’s wife, Rebekah, by Abraham’s servant is found in Gen. 24:1–67. Like Abraham, Isaac describes his wife as a sister in order to deflect danger to his person (26:6–11; cf. 12:10–16; 20:1–18). Rebekah bears two sons to Isaac, Esau and Jacob (25:21–26). Through the instigation and cooperation of Rebekah, Jacob tricks Isaac into conferring a blessing upon him, one originally intended for Esau (27:1–30).

Isaiah

An eighth-century BC prophet who prophesied during the period just before and after the fall of the northern kingdom of Israel to the Assyrians in 722 BC. Isaiah lived in Judah, specifically in Jerusalem.

Isaiah began his prophetic work in the year that King Uzziah died, approximately 733 BC (Isa. 6:1). His ministry continued through the reigns of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. The latter began his rule in 727 BC and ended in 698 BC, but since Isaiah was with him during the Assyrian incursion of 701 BC (see below), the prophet was active until late in his reign. He may have lived into the reign of Hezekiah’s wicked son Manasseh. Tradition states that he died as a martyr, being sawn in half.

Isaiah was married to a prophetess and had at least two sons (Isa. 7:3; 8:3). His sons had names with symbolic import. The first was “Shear-Jashub,” meaning “a remnant will return”; the second was “Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz,” meaning “quick to the plunder, swift to the spoil.”

Apart from such glimpses, readers do not learn as much about Isaiah the person as they do about Jeremiah or even Ezekiel. But his prophecies are clearly connected to the big events of his day. Many of his prophecies have the Syro-Ephraimite war as their background. The king of Syria, Rezin, and the king of Israel, Pekah, tried to enlist the help of the king of Judah, Ahaz, against the encroachment of the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III in the middle of the eighth century BC. Ahaz refused, and Isaiah supported that decision. However, Ahaz did not really trust God in this matter, for against the wishes of Isaiah he wrote to Tiglath-pileser asking for help against Rezin and Pekah, since they had decided to try to replace him with a more amenable person. As a result of his appeal, Tiglath-pileser took Syria, and his successors eventually took the northern kingdom in 722 BC. Ahaz and the kings of Judah who followed him were forced to become vassals.

In 701 BC the current Assyrian king, Sennacherib, moved militarily against Judah to incorporate it into his empire. Isaiah again was at the side of the Judean king, now Hezekiah, encouraging him to depend on God and not submit. In contrast to Ahaz, Hezekiah did not submit, and God delivered him from the Assyrians.

These events are the background and the situations into which Isaiah spoke, but his prophetic vision extended far beyond his lifetime. He saw not only the future defeat of Judah and Jerusalem at the hands of the Babylonians but also their restoration (see esp. Isa. 40–66). The NT cites Isaiah more frequently than any other OT book, finding the ultimate fulfillment of many of his oracles in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

Iscah

The daughter of Abraham’s brother Haran (Gen. 11:29). Some rabbinic commentators identify Sarai and Iskah, probably loosely based on the portrayal of Abraham and Sarai as half-siblings (Gen. 20:12).

Iscariot

An epithet or appellation for the disciple named “Judas” who betrayed Jesus (Matt. 10:4; Mark 3:19; Luke 6:16). A word of uncertain derivation, it may signify “man of Kerioth,” a city in southern Judea (so the alternate textual readings at John 6:71; 12:4; 13:2, 26; 14:22: “from Kerioth”), the plural of “city,” or an Aramaic adaptation of the Latin sicarius, “assassin” or “terrorist.” The latter would place him with the Sicarii, a group of terrorists who murdered Roman sympathizers with curved swords (Acts 21:37–38; Josephus, J.W. 2.254; Ant. 20.186).

Ish-Bosheth

A son of Saul who became king at Mahanaim following his father’s death, although Judah was loyal to David (2 Sam. 2:8–11). His original name was “Esh-Baal” (1 Chron. 8:33; 9:39), probably changed to avoid having “Baal” appear in his name (cf. Hos. 2:16–17 NRSV); “Ish-Bosheth” means “man of shame.” Ish-Bosheth is perhaps to be identified with Saul’s second son, Ishvi (1 Sam. 14:49), and he was absent from Mount Gilboa when Saul died (31:2). His power depended upon Saul’s general Abner, who had placed him on the throne. He weakened his position when he accused Abner of having a sexual relationship with Saul’s concubine Rizpah, leading Abner to defect to David (2 Sam. 3:7–11). Ish-Bosheth was murdered by two of his captains, Rechab and Baanah (2 Sam. 4:5–7), but the chronology of 2 Sam. 2:10–11 suggests that the kingdoms did not immediately unite under David.

Ishbah

A descendant of Caleb and the father of Eshtemoa in the tribe of Judah. His mother was Bithiah, a daughter of Pharaoh (1 Chron. 4:17–18).

Ishbak

One of the six sons fathered by Abraham with Keturah (Gen. 25:2). He was among the sons whom Abraham sent away with gifts to the east so that Isaac would be the sole heir (Gen. 25:5–6; 1 Chron. 1:32).

Ishbi-Benob

A Philistine warrior who sought to take advantage of David’s weariness at some time late in his reign and threatened to kill him. But David’s mighty warrior Abi-shai struck first, killing Ishbi-Benob (2 Sam. 21:16–17). The form of his name is uncertain because of textual issues, but the weight of evidence marginally favors the traditional form. He is said to be “one of the descendants of Rapha,” and he probably was a giant, as “Rapha” can be related to the Hebrew word for “giant” (cf. KJV: “the sons of the giant”; NRSV: “the descendants of the giants”), though some have suggested that he and the three others mentioned in 2 Sam. 21:15–22 were soldiers specially devoted to the god Rapha. He was a formidable adversary, being equipped with a bronze spear (most probably just the spearhead, since spears themselves were wood) weighing approximately seven pounds and an unnamed piece of new equipment, possibly a sword. After Abishai had killed the Philistine, David’s soldiers insisted that David no longer go out with them to battle.

Ishhod

A descendant of Manasseh, he was one of the three sons of Gilead’s sister Hammoleketh (1 Chron. 7:18). His name means “man of majesty.”

Ishi

(1) A Judahite of the line of Jerahmeel (1 Chron. 2:31). (2) A man of Judah (1 Chron. 4:20). (3) A man of Simeon (1 Chron. 4:42). (4) A man of Manasseh (1 Chron. 5:24). (5) A symbolic name in Hos. 2:16 for Yahweh that is transliterated as “Ishi” in some English translations (KJV, ASV) but is spelled differently in Hebrew than the individuals’ names listed above. This name means “my husband,” and Hosea intends it to replace the name “Baali” as an epithet for Yahweh. Baali can also mean “my husband,” but Hosea deems it inappropriate due to its association with the West Semitic deity Baal.

Ishiah

(1) A military leader from the tribe of Issachar during the reign of David (1 Chron. 7:3). (2) A soldier from the tribe of Benjamin who joined David at Ziklag while he was on the run from Saul (1 Chron. 12:6). (3) A Levite from the house of Rehabiah who cast lots in the presence of King David, Zadok, and Ahimelek (1 Chron. 24:21). (4) A Kohathite Levite from the family of Uzziel (1 Chron. 23:20; 24:25). (5) A descendant of Harim who had married a foreign wife during the Persian period but agreed to divorce her during the reforms of Ezra (Ezra 10:31). The NIV renders the name in Ezra 10:31 as Ishijah (NRSV: “Isshijah”). See also Ishijah.

Ishijah

The NIV rendering in Ezra 10:31 of a Hebrew name elsewhere rendered as “Ishiah” (1 Chron. 7:3; 23:20; 24:21, 25). See also Ishiah.

Ishmael

(1) The son of Abraham and Hagar (Gen. 16:11–16; 17:18–26; 21:8–21; 25:12–17; 28:9; 36:3; 1 Chron. 1:28–31), and the progenitor of the Ishmaelites. (2) A descendant of Saul (1 Chron. 8:38; 9:44). (3) Father of Zebadiah, overseer of the judges appointed by Jehoshaphat (2 Chron. 19:4–11). (4) Son of Nethaniah and chief officer of the royal house who assassinated Gedaliah, the Babylonian-appointed governor of Judah, and then fled to Egypt (2 Kings 25:23–26). (5) A military captain (2 Chron. 23:1). (6) A priest who agreed to divorce his foreign wife and provided an offering for his guilt (Ezra 10:18, 22).

Ishmaelites

The ethnic group said to be the descendants of Ishmael’s sons from Gen. 25:12–16. They are mentioned a few times in the OT, including an appearance as the traders who take Joseph down to Egypt (Gen. 37:25–36; see also Gen. 39:1; Judg. 8:24; Ps. 83:6). In Gen. 37, these traders are also called Midianites, often understood as a subgroup of Ishmaelites. The Ishmaelites maintained a Bedouin lifestyle and were a considerable power in the northern Arabian Desert, with their rise to prominence beginning in the eighth century BC and finally fading in the third century BC. Both Jewish and Islamic traditions consider the Ishmaelites (and Ishmael) to be the origins of the Arab people.

Ishmaiah

(1) The leader of David’s thirty mighty men who joined him at Ziklag (1 Chron. 12:4). He was from Gibeon, the city that tricked Israel into making a treaty with it during the conquest (Josh. 9). (2) The chief of Zebulun during the time of David (1 Chron. 27:19).

Ishmerai

One of the sons of Elpaal, he was the head of one of the Benjamite houses in the genealogy of Benjamin (1 Chron. 8:18). His name does not appear anywhere else in biblical or extrabiblical literature.

Ishod

A descendant of Manasseh, he was one of the three sons of Gilead’s sister Hammoleketh (1 Chron. 7:18). His name means “man of majesty.”

Ishpah

One of the sons of Beriah son of Elpaal in the genealogy of Benjamin (1 Chron. 8:16). The name is also transliterated as “Ispah.”

Ishpan

One of the sons of Shashak son of Beriah in the genealogy of Benjamin (1 Chron. 8:22).

Ishtar

A Mesopotamian goddess also known by the Sumerian name “Inanna.” She was a goddess of both love/sexual attraction and war and was associated with the evening star (Venus). Ishtar is prominent in Mesopotamian literature and appears in the Epic of Gilgamesh, but she is not mentioned directly in the Bible. It is likely, however, that Esther’s name is derived from this goddess, and it is at least possible that Ishtar is the Queen of Heaven in Jer. 7:18; 44:17–25.

Ishtob

The Hebrew for this name, ’ish tob, occurs only in 2 Sam. 10:6, 8. The KJV takes “Ishtob” as a simple place name. Other translations (e.g., NIV, NRSV, ESV, ASV) take these two Hebrew words as referring to the “men of Tob.” In this case, ’ish is taken as a collective singular meaning “men,” and tob is the place name also occurring in Judg. 11:3, 5. Either way, “Ishtob” or “Tob” refers to a region in the kingdom of Aram, located north to northwest of Israel. In 2 Sam. 10:6, 8 this is one of the parts of Aram from which the Ammonites hired troops to fight against David.

Ishuah

One of the five offspring of the patriarch Asher (Gen. 46:17; 1 Chron. 7:30; KJV: “Ishuah/Isuah”). In Num. 26:44–47, where the descendants of Ishvah’s three brothers are named, Ishvah is omitted. Either he did not have offspring, or the name “Ishvah” is a variant spelling of “Ishvi,” another of Asher’s sons.

Ishuai

(1) A son of Asher, he immigrated to Egypt at the time of Jacob and Joseph (Gen. 46:17; 1 Chron. 7:30). He is named as the ancestor of a clan of the tribe of Asher at the time of the second census in the wilderness (Num. 26:44). (2) One of the sons of Saul and Ahinoam (1 Sam. 14:49).

Ishui

(1) A son of Asher, he immigrated to Egypt at the time of Jacob and Joseph (Gen. 46:17; 1 Chron. 7:30). He is named as the ancestor of a clan of the tribe of Asher at the time of the second census in the wilderness (Num. 26:44). (2) One of the sons of Saul and Ahinoam (1 Sam. 14:49).

Ishvah

One of the five offspring of the patriarch Asher (Gen. 46:17; 1 Chron. 7:30; KJV: “Ishuah/Isuah”). In Num. 26:44–47, where the descendants of Ishvah’s three brothers are named, Ishvah is omitted. Either he did not have offspring, or the name “Ishvah” is a variant spelling of “Ishvi,” another of Asher’s sons.

Ishvi

(1) A son of Asher, he immigrated to Egypt at the time of Jacob and Joseph (Gen. 46:17; 1 Chron. 7:30). He is named as the ancestor of a clan of the tribe of Asher at the time of the second census in the wilderness (Num. 26:44). (2) One of the sons of Saul and Ahinoam (1 Sam. 14:49).

Ishvite

(1) A son of Asher, he immigrated to Egypt at the time of Jacob and Joseph (Gen. 46:17; 1 Chron. 7:30). He is named as the ancestor of a clan of the tribe of Asher at the time of the second census in the wilderness (Num. 26:44). (2) One of the sons of Saul and Ahinoam (1 Sam. 14:49).

Iskah

The daughter of Abraham’s brother Haran (Gen. 11:29). Some rabbinic commentators identify Sarai and Iskah, probably loosely based on the portrayal of Abraham and Sarai as half-siblings (Gen. 20:12).

Island

Usually, a land mass smaller than a continent and completely surrounded by water. But in the OT especially, references to unnamed islands may also indicate coastlands or represent groups of people or nations. Twice in Isaiah, islands are listed as a people group, along with specific nations, as recipients of God’s providence (11:11; 66:19). Residents of the Phoenician seaport of Tyre are referred to as “people of the island” (23:2, 6). Unnamed islands are included in God’s judgment, restoration, and deliverance of Israel (40:15; 41:1, 5; 42:4, 10, 12, 15; 49:1; 51:5; 59:18; 60:9).

Islands are personified as terrified recipients of God’s judgment against Tyre (Ezek. 26:18) and in the final judgment against Babylon (Rev. 16:20; cf. 6:14). Wild beasts of the desert and of the islands ransack lands desolated by God’s judgment (Isa. 13:22; 34:14; Jer. 50:39 KJV).

The specific Mediterranean islands named in the NT are predominantly associated with Paul’s missionary journeys in the book of Acts (but see 4:36; 11:19–20). Paul and Barnabas preach on Cyprus at the beginning of Paul’s first journey (13:4–13). The Aegean island of Samothrace is a stopping point in Paul’s second journey (16:11). He approaches Chios and Samos, off the coast of modern-day Turkey, on his third journey (20:15) and stops at Kos and Rhodes (21:1). Paul’s ship, taking him as a prisoner to Rome, encounters a storm off Crete (27:12–13), passes the small island of Cauda (27:16), and is wrecked on Malta (28:1–11). Finally, the apostle John experiences his apocalyptic vision on the Aegean island of Patmos (Rev. 1:9).

Ismachiah

One of ten Levitical administrators responsible for managing the “contributions, tithes and dedicated gifts” brought to the temple during the reign of Hezekiah (2 Chron. 31:12–13). They served under the Levite brothers Konaniah and Shimei, who had been appointed by King Hezekiah and Azariah, the official in charge of the temple.

Ismaiah

(1) The leader of David’s thirty mighty men who joined him at Ziklag (1 Chron. 12:4). He was from Gibeon, the city that tricked Israel into making a treaty with it during the conquest (Josh. 9). (2) The chief of Zebulun during the time of David (1 Chron. 27:19).

Ismakiah

One of ten Levitical administrators responsible for managing the “contributions, tithes and dedicated gifts” brought to the temple during the reign of Hezekiah (2 Chron. 31:12–13). They served under the Levite brothers Konaniah and Shimei, who had been appointed by King Hezekiah and Azariah, the official in charge of the temple.

Ispah

One of the sons of Beriah son of Elpaal in the genealogy of Benjamin (1 Chron. 8:16). The name is also transliterated as “Ispah.”

Israel

The name “Israel” (Heb. yisra’el) means “God struggles” or “one who struggles with God.” (1) Jacob’s appointed name after he “struggled with God” (Gen. 32:28; cf. 35:10). Jacob’s descendants are called “Israelites” or “children of Israel” (Josh. 3:17; 7:25; Judg. 8:27; Jer. 3:21) and the “house of Israel” (Exod. 16:31; 40:38). (2) After the exile, the designation “Israel” gained national significance. “Israel” is rarely a geographical designation (cf. 2 Kings 5:2; 2 Chron. 30:25; 34:7; Ezek. 27:17; 40:2), suggesting that the significance of the term is in the political and religious aspects (cf. Egyptian Merneptah Inscription). (3) After the death of Saul, ten tribes arrogated this name, as though they were the whole nation (2 Sam. 2:9–10, 17, 28; 3:10, 17; 19:40–43). (4) The designation of God’s true people (Ps. 73:1; Isa. 45:17; 49:3; John 1:47; Rom. 9:6; 11:26).

Israelites

The designation “Israelites” signifies the nation of Israel, which can be traced back to the children of Jacob (Gen. 46:8; cf. Exod. 1:9; Num. 1:45). To distinguish themselves from foreigners, Israelites called themselves ’ibrim, “Hebrews” (Gen. 43:32; Exod. 10:3). During the period of the divided kingdom, the name “Israelites” was used to refer to the Ephraimites (2 Kings 17:6; 18:11); during the Second Temple period, it took on a religious orientation (Sir. 46:10; 47:2; Jdt. 4:11; 2 Macc. 1:25–26). In the NT, true Israelites are not necessarily those descended from Israel or Abraham but rather those who trust in Jesus Christ, who is the fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham (Rom. 9:4–8; Gal. 4:21–31; cf. Rev. 21:12). See also Israel, Spiritual.

Issachar

(1) The ninth son of Jacob, his fifth by Leah (Gen. 30:17–18). Issachar, whose name sounds like the Hebrew phrase “hired man,” was so named because Leah “hired” her husband to impregnate her by giving to Rachel some mandrakes that Reuben (Leah’s son) had gathered. The patriarch Issachar does not figure prominently in the patriarchal stories of Genesis. The blessing of Issachar in Gen. 49:14–15 reflects the history and folklore of the tribe that bore his name rather than any biblical story. (2) The seventh of Obed-Edom’s eight sons, temple gatekeepers (1 Chron. 26:5).

Isshiah

(1) A military leader from the tribe of Issachar during the reign of David (1 Chron. 7:3). (2) A soldier from the tribe of Benjamin who joined David at Ziklag while he was on the run from Saul (1 Chron. 12:6). (3) A Levite from the house of Rehabiah who cast lots in the presence of King David, Zadok, and Ahimelek (1 Chron. 24:21). (4) A Kohathite Levite from the family of Uzziel (1 Chron. 23:20; 24:25). (5) A descendant of Harim who had married a foreign wife during the Persian period but agreed to divorce her during the reforms of Ezra (Ezra 10:31). The NIV renders the name in Ezra 10:31 as Ishijah (NRSV: “Isshijah”). See also Ishijah.

Isshijah

The NIV rendering in Ezra 10:31 of a Hebrew name elsewhere rendered as “Ishiah” (1 Chron. 7:3; 23:20; 24:21, 25). See also Ishiah.

Issue

(1) A topic for discussion or concern (Exod. 22:11). (2) To publish, announce, or officially declare something, especially a decree of some sort (2 Sam. 14:8; Ezra 4:21). (3) In the KJV, offspring or progeny (Gen. 48:6; Isa. 22:24; Matt. 22:25). (4) In the KJV, a discharge, including normal menstrual discharge (Lev. 15:25–30), abnormal menstrual discharge (Lev. 15:25–30; Matt. 9:20), discharge as a result of disease (Lev. 15:2–15), or seminal discharge (Ezek. 23:20).

Issue of Blood

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.

Isui

(1) A son of Asher, he immigrated to Egypt at the time of Jacob and Joseph (Gen. 46:17; 1 Chron. 7:30). He is named as the ancestor of a clan of the tribe of Asher at the time of the second census in the wilderness (Num. 26:44). (2) One of the sons of Saul and Ahinoam (1 Sam. 14:49).

Italian Cohort

In the NT, speira (NRSV: “cohort”; NIV: “regiment”) refers to a Roman military unit of six hundred soldiers, one-tenth of a legion. The Gentile centurion Cornelius was an officer of the Italian Cohort in Caesarea Maritima (Acts 10:1), the capital of Palestine under Roman rule. Cornelius commanded a smaller military unit called a “century,” an eighty-man subset of the Italian Cohort. “Italy” (Gk. Italia) was then, as now, the name of the country of which Rome is the capital.

Italy

The peninsular region roughly corresponding to the modern southern European nation of the same name. Acts 18:2 recounts Paul’s meeting of Aquila and Priscilla, who were forced to move from Italy to Corinth because of the emperor Claudius’s edict expelling all Jews from Rome. Italy was Paul’s destination as he sailed as a prisoner to the imperial courts of Rome after appealing to Caesar in his trial before Porcius Festus (Acts 25:11; 27:1, 6). On this journey, Paul landed in Puteoli and traveled by land through Italy, heading to Rome (Acts 28:12–16). Cornelius the centurion was an officer of the Italian Cohort of the Roman army (Acts 10:1). Hebrews 13:24 includes a greeting from Italian Christians.

Itch

A skin disease, closely related to scabies, characterized by an irritating sensation. Moses gave regulations regarding a variety of skin diseases (Lev. 13:1–14:32). Based on these guiding principles, the priest was able to declare whether a person was clean or unclean. The priest used the term “itch” (Heb. neteq) to differentiate a minor skin disease from leprosy, depending on how it developed (Lev. 13:30–37). Moses warned the Israelites that if they failed to live up to their covenant commitment with Yahweh, they would be inflicted with incurable diseases, one of which was itchy skin (Heb. kheres [Deut. 28:27]). This disease disqualified its victims from the priesthood (Lev. 21:20). Job suffered from an itching disease (Heb. shekhin) and used a potsherd to scratch himself (Job 2:7–8).

Ithai

(1) A Gittite soldier and commander of six hundred men who joined with King David and his men as they were fleeing Jerusalem, which had been overtaken by Absalom. Despite his recent arrival and against David’s noble objections, Ittai remained faithful to David, earning him David’s confidence (2 Sam. 15:19–22). As David prepared for the battle that would claim Absalom’s life, he named Ittai as commander of a third of his forces, making him equal to Joab and Abishai (2 Sam. 23:29 [NIV: “Ithai”). He is not subsequently mentioned. (2) The son of Ribai, he was a Benjamite and one of David’s thirty mighty men (2 Sam. 23:29; “Ithai” in 1 Chron. 11:31).

Ithamar

The fourth son of Aaron and Elisheba (Exod. 6:23), he, along with his three brothers, was ordained to serve as a priest (Num. 3:2–4; 1 Chron. 24:1–2). Due to the death of Nadab and Abihu, which resulted from their offering an unauthorized sacrifice (Lev. 10:1–2; Num. 26:60–61), Eleazar and Ithamar were the only sons of Aaron left to serve as priests. According to Exod. 38:21, Ithamar directed the recording of the materials used for the tabernacle. He was also specifically placed over the work of the Gershonite and Merarite clans, both of which were appointed to serve in and carry the tent of meeting (Num. 4:28, 33; 7:8).

Ithiel

(1) A Benjamite forefather of Sallu, whose family settled in Jerusalem after the return from exile in Babylon (Neh. 11:7). He is not mentioned among Sallu’s ancestors in the parallel passage in 1 Chron. 9. (2) Along with Ucal, he is mentioned as a recipient of the words of Agur (Prov. 30:1). Both his and his counterpart’s names may have symbolic meaning in the proverb. The Hebrew is obscure, and the names are absent in the LXX and have been variously translated (e.g., NRSV: “I am weary, O God, I am weary, O God. How can I prevail?”). Some scholars translate them not as names but as part of a confession of weakness by Agur.

Ithlah

A town listed among the inheritance of the tribe of Dan after the conquest of Canaan under Joshua (Josh. 19:42). It is alternatively spelled “Jethlah.” The exact location is unknown; however, its position in the list suggests that it was likely located in the southern portion of the territory of Dan, between Aijalon and Timnah.

Ithmah

The only Moabite mentioned among David’s thirty mighty men (1 Chron. 11:46). He is among sixteen men uniquely mentioned by the Chronicler (1 Chron. 11:41–47; cf. 2 Sam. 23:24–39).

Ithnan

A town located in the southern portion of the territory allotted to the tribe of Judah (Josh. 15:23). The location of Ithnan is unknown, though its listing between Hazor and Ziph suggests the eastern Negev.

Ithra

(1) The eldest son of Gideon, as a youth he fearfully disobeyed his father’s command to kill two kings of Midian (Judg. 8:20). (2) The father of Amasa, a military commander under David who was killed by another military commander, Joab (2 Sam. 17:25 [here called “Ithra”; see NIV mg.]; 1 Kings 2:5, 32). (3) A son of Jada and a descendant of Jerahmeel who died childless (1 Chron. 2:32). (4) The first of Ezrah’s four sons, from the tribe of Judah (1 Chron. 4:17). (5) A descendant in the tribe of Asher (1 Chron. 7:38). (6) In 1 Chron. 7:37 “Ithran” is sometimes understood to be another name for “Jether.”

Ithran

(1) The third of Dishon’s four sons and a grandson of Seir, he was a Horite chief in Edom (Gen. 36:26; 1 Chron. 1:41). The Horites were later displaced and destroyed by the descendants of Esau (Deut. 2:12). (2) The tenth of Zophah’s eleven sons, he was among the brave warriors of Asher (1 Chron. 7:37). Here, “Ithran” may be a variant of “Jether.” See also Jether.

Ithream

The sixth son fathered by David while he was reigning from Hebron, born to Eglah, the sixth wife he married there (2 Sam. 3:5; 1 Chron. 3:3).

Ithrite

A family unit among the descendants of Caleb and within the clan of Kiriath Jearim (1 Chron. 2:53). Two of David’s mighty men, Ira and Gareb, were Ithrites (2 Sam. 23:38; 1 Chron. 11:40). Associations with Jether or Jethro or the town Jatti are inconclusive, as are speculations of their non-Israelite origin.

Ittahkazin

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

Ittai

(1) A Gittite soldier and commander of six hundred men who joined with King David and his men as they were fleeing Jerusalem, which had been overtaken by Absalom. Despite his recent arrival and against David’s noble objections, Ittai remained faithful to David, earning him David’s confidence (2 Sam. 15:19–22). As David prepared for the battle that would claim Absalom’s life, he named Ittai as commander of a third of his forces, making him equal to Joab and Abishai (2 Sam. 23:29 [NIV: “Ithai”). He is not subsequently mentioned. (2) The son of Ribai, he was a Benjamite and one of David’s thirty mighty men (2 Sam. 23:29; “Ithai” in 1 Chron. 11:31).

Iturea

A predominantly Gentile territory north of Galilee at the base of Mount Hermon (present-day Syria). It is mentioned by name only once, as one of two territories ruled by Herod Philip, half brother of Herod Antipas (Luke 3:1). Philip built his headquarters in a region of Iturea that he named “Caesarea Philippi” after himself and the Roman emperor Augustus. Jesus and his disciples traveled northward from the Sea of Galilee and Bethsaida through the villages around Caesarea Philippi in Iturea (Matt. 16:13; Mark 8:27), where Peter confessed Jesus as the Christ. The origin of the name “Iturea” is uncertain. It may reflect earlier Arab inhabitants descended from Jetur, a son of Ishmael (Gen. 25:15; 1 Chron. 1:31; 5:19).

Ivah

Geographical location whose residents were deported by the Assyrians and resettled in Samaria shortly after 721 BC (2 Kings 17:24). The biblical text explains that after their resettlement, “ each national group made its own gods” (2 Kings 17:29–31). Since the Avvites made Nibhaz and Tartak, it is almost certain that Avva should be identified with the Elamite city Ama, especially since Akkadian m is often rendered w in Hebrew (the Hebrew w often is spelled v in English). Their deities were Ibnahaza and Dirtaq. It is possible that this is the same city as Ivvah (2 Kings 18:34; 19:13; Isa. 37:13).

Ivory

Ivory artifacts from the Chalcolithic, Late Bronze, and Iron Ages, as well as the Greco-Roman and Byzantine periods, have been found in the Levant. This material was African and Asian elephant tusk and hippopotamus tusk or teeth from Egypt. Herds of elephants are thought to have roamed Syria into the Iron Age. Ivory was also brought from other locales (2 Chron. 9:17, 21). Ivory objects were luxury items and symbols of wealth (1 Kings 22:39; Amos 3:15; 6:4) and were considered to be of great beauty (cf. Song 5:14; 7:4). Bone was also a medium for some fine objects, but more often for utilitarian items such as awls, pins, spindle whorls, and handles.

Chalcolithic finds from Beersheba (c. 3300 BC) include male and female figurines as large as 33 cm tall. Late Bronze Age (1550–1200 BC) plaques depicting feasts and military scenes were found at Megiddo. From the Iron Age, Samaria has yielded numerous ivory finds, including furniture, inlays, and sculptures of cherubs, and Sennacherib lists similar items among the spoils of his campaign in 701 BC. In later periods, fewer ivory artifacts are found (but note Rev. 18:12).

Ivvah

Geographical location whose residents were deported by the Assyrians and resettled in Samaria shortly after 721 BC (2 Kings 17:24). The biblical text explains that after their resettlement, “ each national group made its own gods” (2 Kings 17:29–31). Since the Avvites made Nibhaz and Tartak, it is almost certain that Avva should be identified with the Elamite city Ama, especially since Akkadian m is often rendered w in Hebrew (the Hebrew w often is spelled v in English). Their deities were Ibnahaza and Dirtaq. It is possible that this is the same city as Ivvah (2 Kings 18:34; 19:13; Isa. 37:13).

Iye Abarim

A place where the Israelites camped during the wilderness wanderings (Num. 21:11; 33:44). The name apparently is abbreviated as “Iyim” in Num. 33:45. The text locates it in “the desert that faces Moab toward the sunrise.” Abarim is the mountain range from which Moses viewed the promised land (Num. 27:12; 33:47–48; Deut. 32:49). See also Abarim.

Iyim

(1) A town allotted to Judah under Joshua (Josh. 15:29; several versions read “Iim”). Its precise location is unknown, but it was in the far south of Israel’s territory, in the Negev region (see Josh. 15:21). (2) A variant of “Iye Abarim” (Num. 33:45; KJV: “Iim”).

Izal

The NIV spelling (ESV, NRSV, NASB: “Uzal”) for one of the places that traded with Tyre cited by Ezekiel in a lament over Tyre (Ezek. 27:19). It perhaps is associated with the district of Izalla, mentioned in Akkadian texts as having paid tribute in wine to Ashurnasirpal.

Izehar

The second of the four sons of Kohath from the tribe of Levi (Exod. 6:18; Num. 3:19; 1 Chron. 6:2, 18; 23:12), he had three sons: Korah, Nepheg, and Zikri (Exod. 6:21). Korah, along with some Reubenites, rose against Moses and Aaron in the wilderness to challenge their status as leaders. As a result, Korah and his associates, along with their possessions, were swallowed alive by the earth (Num. 16:1–34). Heman, the temple musician and king David’s seer, was a descendant of Izhar (1 Chron. 6:33–38). See also Zohar.

Izeharite

The second of the four sons of Kohath from the tribe of Levi (Exod. 6:18; Num. 3:19; 1 Chron. 6:2, 18; 23:12), he had three sons: Korah, Nepheg, and Zikri (Exod. 6:21). Korah, along with some Reubenites, rose against Moses and Aaron in the wilderness to challenge their status as leaders. As a result, Korah and his associates, along with their possessions, were swallowed alive by the earth (Num. 16:1–34). Heman, the temple musician and king David’s seer, was a descendant of Izhar (1 Chron. 6:33–38). See also Zohar.

Izhar

The second of the four sons of Kohath from the tribe of Levi (Exod. 6:18; Num. 3:19; 1 Chron. 6:2, 18; 23:12), he had three sons: Korah, Nepheg, and Zikri (Exod. 6:21). Korah, along with some Reubenites, rose against Moses and Aaron in the wilderness to challenge their status as leaders. As a result, Korah and his associates, along with their possessions, were swallowed alive by the earth (Num. 16:1–34). Heman, the temple musician and king David’s seer, was a descendant of Izhar (1 Chron. 6:33–38). See also Zohar.

Izharite

The second of the four sons of Kohath from the tribe of Levi (Exod. 6:18; Num. 3:19; 1 Chron. 6:2, 18; 23:12), he had three sons: Korah, Nepheg, and Zikri (Exod. 6:21). Korah, along with some Reubenites, rose against Moses and Aaron in the wilderness to challenge their status as leaders. As a result, Korah and his associates, along with their possessions, were swallowed alive by the earth (Num. 16:1–34). Heman, the temple musician and king David’s seer, was a descendant of Izhar (1 Chron. 6:33–38). See also Zohar.

Izliah

The sixth of the seven sons of Elpaal, he was one of the family heads of the Benjamites who lived in Jerusalem (1 Chron. 8:18). The KJV transliterates the name as Jezliah; most English versions have Izliah.

Izrahiah

The son of Uzzi, he had four sons, all of whom were chiefs from the tribe of Issachar. Izrahiah’s family clan had the most fighting men in the tribe of Issachar and was noted for taking many wives and having many children, which probably made this clan a military powerhouse (1 Chron. 7:3–4).

Izrahite

Name of the family clan or place of origin of Shamhuth, the commander of the fifth of David’s twelve military divisions (1 Chron. 27:8).

Izri

A son of Jeduthun and leader of the fourth division of temple musicians, who served under the supervision of Asaph, Jeduthun, and Heman (1 Chron. 25:11). See also Zeri.

Izziah

A priest and descendant of Parosh who disobeyed the word of God and married a foreign wife (Ezra 10:25; KJV: “Jeziah”).<