A son of Caleb the son of Jephunneh, he belonged to the tribe of Judah and was listed in Judah’s genealogy (1 Chron. 4:15).
(1) The daughter of Lamech and Zillah and the sister of Tubal-Cain, the bronze and ironworker mentioned in Cain’s genealogy (Gen. 4:22). (2) The mother of King Rehoboam of Judah and therefore one of Solomon’s many wives. The texts list her as an Ammonite (1 Kings 14:21, 31; 2 Chron. 12:13). (3) A town located in the lowlands of Judah near Lachish, it was in the allotment of the tribe of Judah (Josh. 15:41).
(1) A grandson of Benjamin and the founder of the Naamites (Num. 26:40; 1 Chron. 8:4; see Gen. 46:21). (2) A Syrian military commander healed of leprosy after reluctantly following Elisha’s command to dip himself seven times in the Jordan River (2 Kings 5). Jesus referred to Naaman as a model of faith (Luke 4:27). (3) A descendant of the Benjamite Ehud, he was a family head (1 Chron. 8:6–7).
The tribal affiliation of Zophar, one of Job’s three friends (Job 2:11; 11:1; 20:1; 42:9), best identified with the Sabean tribe of the same name in southern Arabia.
A clan descended from Naaman from the tribe of Benjamin, present at the time of the second wilderness census (Num. 26:40).
(1) One of the two wives of Asshur, the father of Tekoa; she bore him four sons (1 Chron. 4:5–6). (2) A city near Jericho, on the border of Ephraim (Josh. 16:7 [KJV: “Naarath”]), probably the same city as Naaran (1 Chron. 7:28). It is usually identified with Tel el-Jisr.
One of David’s elite warriors, a son of Ezbal (1 Chron. 11:37). He is known as Paarai in 2 Sam. 23:35.
(1) One of the two wives of Asshur, the father of Tekoa; she bore him four sons (1 Chron. 4:5–6). (2) A city near Jericho, on the border of Ephraim (Josh. 16:7 [KJV: “Naarath”]), probably the same city as Naaran (1 Chron. 7:28). It is usually identified with Tel el-Jisr.
(1) One of the two wives of Asshur, the father of Tekoa; she bore him four sons (1 Chron. 4:5–6). (2) A city near Jericho, on the border of Ephraim (Josh. 16:7 [KJV: “Naarath”]), probably the same city as Naaran (1 Chron. 7:28). It is usually identified with Tel el-Jisr.
The son of Amminadab, the father of Salmon, and an ancestor of David and Jesus (Ruth 4:20; 1 Chron. 2:10–11; Matt. 1:4; Luke 3:32). He was a tribal leader for Judah in the exodus (Num. 2:3; 7:12–17; 10:14), a brother-in-law to Aaron (Exod. 6:23 [KJV: “Naashon”]), and an assistant in the census conducted by Moses and Aaron (Num. 1:7).
(1) The name of the firstborn son of Ishmael (Gen. 25:13; 28:9; 36:3; 1 Chron. 1:29) and an Arabic tribe mentioned in cuneiform sources. (2) The place from where rams will be gathered, mentioned in the context of future blessing for Jerusalem (Isa. 60:7).
A wealthy landowner in Carmel, Nabal, gruff and hard, was married to the beautiful and intelligent Abigail. Nabal treated David contemptuously, even though David had protected Nabal’s shepherds and possessions. Abigail interceded to keep David from avenging the insult. When Nabal heard, he apparently died of shock, so David took the virtuous Abigail as his wife (1 Sam. 25:2–42).
A Semitic people group inhabiting territory south of the Dead Sea, bordering Judea. The terrain and climate forced them to become experts in water control in agriculture. The probable first mention of this group is from 312 BC in conjunction with Antigonus, who oppressed the Nabatean capital, Petra. The book of 2 Maccabees chronicles the kings of the Nabateans (Arabians) and references Aretas I (2 Macc. 5:8). In 40 BC Herod the Great, whose mother was Nabatean, escaped to Petra because the Parthians attacked Jerusalem. Later, Herod Antipas married the daughter of Aretas IV but subsequently divorced her to marry Herodias. It is this Aretas IV whom Paul references when he describes his escape over the wall in a basket in Damascus (2 Cor. 11:32).
Nabopolassar was a Chaldean who established the Neo-Babylonian Empire, which lasted until Babylon’s fall in 539 BC. He began his revolt against Assyria in 626 BC. When the Medes attacked the Assyrian city Assur in 615 BC, Nabopolassar assisted at the end. A coalition continued over several years, defeating Assyria’s capitals as it retreated west. Assyria turned to Egypt’s Pharaoh Necho for help. Necho took Gaza, battled Josiah at Megiddo (2 Kings 23:29–30), and advanced to Carchemish. Nabopolassar’s son, Nebuchadnezzar, defeated Egypt in 605 BC, the same year Nabopolassar died.
A Jezreelite of Samaria, he owned a vineyard near the palace of King Ahab in Jezreel. Since Ahab desired to have this vineyard, he asked Naboth to sell or trade it. Naboth refused, in keeping with the law of inheritance (Lev. 25:23). The sullen Ahab reported this to his wife, Jezebel, who succeeded in having Naboth killed by the slander of false witnesses. After Naboth’s death, Ahab took possession of the vineyard. The prophet Elijah predicted the judgment of Ahab and Jezebel for this action, the fulfillment of which came as Ahab’s blood was licked by dogs in Jezreel, as Ahab’s descendant Joram was left for dead in this same vineyard (2 Kings 9:22–26), and as Jezebel met a violent end so that the dogs licked her blood (2 Kings 9:33–37).
Located between Baalah of Judah (Kiriath Jearim) and Jerusalem, the “threshing floor of Nakon” is mentioned in the account of David’s transport of the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6:6). Here Uzzah reached out his hand to steady the ark and was struck dead by God for his irreverence. “Nakon” may be a place name or the name of the owner of the threshing floor. It is identified as the threshing floor of Kidon in the parallel account in Chronicles (1 Chron. 13:9).
(1) A descendant of Shem, he was the son of Serug, father of Terah, and grandfather of Abraham (Gen. 11:22–25). (2) The son of Terah and the brother of Abraham and Haran (Gen. 11:26). Nahor married Milkah, the daughter of his deceased brother, Haran (Gen. 11:28–32). When Abraham headed west for the land of Canaan (Gen. 12:1, 4), Nahor remained in the city of Harran. Through his wife, Milkah, Nahor fathered eight sons, and he fathered another four through his concubine, Reumah (Gen. 22:20–24). Bethuel, one of Nahor’s sons through Milkah, fathered Rebekah, who became the wife of Isaac, Abraham’s son (Gen. 24:15, 67). Relations between Nahor’s eastern branch of the family and Abraham’s western branch apparently ceased when Laban, Nahor’s grandson, had a falling out with Jacob, Abraham’s grandson, in which Laban called on the Lord (Abraham’s God) and on Nahor’s god to judge between the two parties (Gen. 31:53). (3) “The town of Nahor” is a town in northwest Mesopotamia, where Abraham’s servant encounters Rebekah at the well (Gen. 24:10). “Nahor” may be the name of the town, or the text is simply referring to the town where Nahor once lived (so GNT, NLT).
Located between Baalah of Judah (Kiriath Jearim) and Jerusalem, the “threshing floor of Nakon” is mentioned in the account of David’s transport of the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6:6). Here Uzzah reached out his hand to steady the ark and was struck dead by God for his irreverence. “Nakon” may be a place name or the name of the owner of the threshing floor. It is identified as the threshing floor of Kidon in the parallel account in Chronicles (1 Chron. 13:9).
(1) The firstborn son of Aaron (Exod. 6:23). He served in the priesthood with his father and his brother Abihu (Exod. 24:1). Leviticus 10 notes that Nadab and Abihu offered forbidden fire with the incense. God subsequently destroyed them with fire. Since Nadab and Abihu had no sons, Eleazar and Ithamar, the other two sons of Aaron, served in their stead (1 Chron. 24:1–2). (2) The son of Jeroboam, he became king of Israel upon his father’s death in the second year of King Asa of Judah (1 Kings 14:20; 15:25). Nadab did evil, as did his father, in his two-year reign. Baasha of the tribe of Issachar assassinated him and reigned in his stead (1 Kings 15:25–28). (3) A son of Shammai and the father of Seled and Appaim (1 Chron. 2:28–30), from the tribe of Judah. (4) A son of Jeiel, his brother Ner was the grandfather of King Saul (1 Chron. 8:29–33).
A town in Egypt near the location of a 1945 archaeological discovery in which numerous gnostic Christian texts were found, including works such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Apocryphon of James, the Gospel of Truth, the Gospel of Philip, the Dialogue of the Savior, the Apocalypse of Peter, and many others. Nag Hammadi is located over three hundred miles south of Cairo along the Nile River. A group of Egyptian peasants found thirteen papyrus manuscripts at the base of a cliff, and they contained a total of over fifty different works. Nearly all of these writings are gnostic Christian in nature, though a few, such as Plato’s Republic, are not. The manuscripts, dated to the fourth century AD, are written in Coptic (an Egyptian language, written using an adapted Greek alphabet) and are in codex (book) form. They are currently housed in the Coptic Museum in Cairo.
Gnosticism
Commonly referred to as the Nag Hammadi Library, this group of texts has shed a great deal of light on the early Christian gnostic movements that were present during the second through fourth centuries AD and beyond. While some early church fathers provided commentary and criticism of gnosticism in their own works, the Nag Hammadi discovery has provided the opportunity to see firsthand the writings and thought of this movement, which was branded heretical by many of the earliest Christian leaders.
The term “gnosticism” derives from the Greek word for “knowledge” (gnōsis). Gnostics, then, were those who placed an emphasis on knowledge, often of a secret or hidden nature. Saving knowledge, according to gnostic belief systems, comes by revelation from a transcendent realm. This revelation typically is available through a revealer who comes to show people the true knowledge of God and self, the two of which are often intertwined, since gnostics consider the true self to be of divine origin. Salvation of the self includes returning to the divine world from which it came. Therefore, in Christian versions of gnosticism Jesus is portrayed as the revealer of this hidden knowledge needed for salvation, the returning of the self to its divine origin. The gnostic movement was not confined to Christianity, as gnostics quite often adapted their myths to make them compatible with other religions with which they came into contact.
The Gospel of Thomas
Among the writings found at Nag Hammadi, the Gospel of Thomas is the best known. It contains a collection of 114 sayings attributed to Jesus. Unlike the NT Gospels, the Gospel of Thomas contains no narrative material; Jesus performs no miracles or healings, none of his travels are described, and there is no passion or resurrection story. Instead, it contains only a list of Jesus’ sayings, with the occasional reply or question from his disciples. This has led some to conclude that the Gospel of Thomas is similar in genre to the hypothetical Q document, which may have been a source for the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke. However, even Q allegedly includes some narrative material (e.g., Matt. 4:1–11 // Luke 4:1–13; Matt. 8:5–13 // Luke 7:1–10).
Many of the sayings in the Gospel of Thomas have parallels in the NT Gospels, including the following:
Jesus said, “Often you have desired to hear these sayings that I am speaking to you, and you have no one else from whom to hear them. There will be days when you will seek me and you will not find me.” (Gos. Thom. 38; cf. John 7:32–36)
Jesus said, “Whoever blasphemes against the Father will be forgiven, and whoever blasphemes against the Son will be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either on earth or in heaven.” (Gos. Thom. 44; cf. Matt. 12:31–32; Mark 3:28–30; Luke 12:10)
Jesus said, “Show me the stone which the builders have rejected. That one is the corner-stone.” (Gos. Thom. 66; cf. Mark 12:10–11)
Because of these similarities, the question has arisen concerning the relationship between the Gospel of Thomas and the NT Gospels. Some have suggested that, in fact, the Gospel of Thomas is the earliest of all the Gospels. This claim has been rejected by the overwhelming majority of scholars, who have instead concluded that the Gospel of Thomas reflects a later development of the sayings of Jesus that have been largely shaped out of a desire to reflect gnostic ideas. The strong gnostic theology prevalent in the Gospel of Thomas is on display in, for example, sayings 83 and 84:
Jesus said, “Images are visible to people, but the light within them is hidden in the image of the Father’s light. He will be disclosed, but his image is hidden by his light.”
Jesus said, “When you see your likeness, you are happy. But when you see your images that came into being before you and that neither die nor become visible, how much you will have to bear!” (Gos. Thom. 83–84)
Apocryphal Gospels and Apocalypses
Other apocryphal Gospels are among the works found at Nag Hammadi. The Gospel of Truth is not of the Gospel genre per se, but rather its title reflects the text’s claim to be telling the “good news” of the salvific work of Jesus, albeit from the perspective of early gnosticism. The Gospel of Philip is concerned primarily with the issue of sacraments within a gnostic understanding of human existence after physical death. In the Gospel of Mary there is a dialogue between the risen Jesus and his disciples, which is followed by Mary Magdalene receiving a special revelation from the Savior.
In addition to Gospels, the Nag Hammadi texts include several apocalypses, including the Apocalypse of Paul, the First Apocalypse of James and the Second Apocalypse of James, the Apocalypse of Adam, and the Apocalypse of Peter. These generally purport to give an account of a revelation seen by a well-known figure, especially an apostle (e.g., Peter, James, Paul). None of these works are considered to be accounts of the actual apostles; rather, they were written pseudonymously.
An otherwise unknown postexilic ancestor of Jesus mentioned only in Luke 3:25 (KJV: “Nagge”) as the son of Maath and the father of Esli.
A Levitical city, one of four given to the Levites from the tribal allotment of Zebulun (Josh. 21:35). Nahalal also appears in Josh. 19:15, where it is listed as a city located within Zebulun’s allotted boundaries, and in Judg. 1:30, which states that Zebulun failed to remove the Canaanite occupants of the city. Possible site locations include Tell el-Beida, which sits on the Esdraelon Plain, and Tell en-Nahl, which is on the Acco Plain. Tell en-Nahl is generally the preferred location, although it is outside of Zebulun’s traditional boundaries.
One of Israel’s stopping places across the Jordan prior to entering the promised land (Num. 21:19). Its name means “stream of El [God]” or “palm grove of El.” It has been identified with Wadi Wala, which flows into the Arnon River from the north, or with Wadi Zarqa Ma’in, which flows into the Dead Sea.
The brother of Hodiah’s wife, in the tribe of Judah (1 Chron. 4:19).
One of David’s thirty mighty warriors, he is described as a Beerothite and the armor-bearer of Joab (2 Sam. 23:37; 1 Chron. 11:39), the commander of David’s army.
(1) The Ammonite king who attacked the Israelite city of Jabesh Gilead early in Saul’s reign and was subsequently defeated by the new Israelite king (1 Sam. 11). Nahash (lit., “snake”) advanced against Jabesh Gilead and demanded to humiliate Israel by gouging out the right eye of everyone in the city as a condition to end the siege. A copy of 1 Samuel from Qumran includes additional material also found in Josephus’s Antiquities. These versions also state that Nahash had already gouged out the right eye of all the Israelites in the region except for the seven thousand men in Jabesh Gilead. Fortunately for them, as all versions attest, Saul responded by raising an army and defeating Nahash and the Ammonites. The Nahash who is in league with David in later texts (2 Sam. 10:2; 17:27) may well be the same king. (2) The father of Abigal and Zeruiah (2 Sam. 17:25), (half-?)sisters to David (1 Chron. 2:13–16). Apparently, he died, and his widow married David’s father, Jesse.
(1) A descendant of Esau through Reuel (Gen. 36:13; 1 Chron. 1:37). One of the clans of the Edomites derives its name from this Nahath (Gen. 36:17). (2) A Levite in the genealogy in 1 Chron. 6:26. He may be the same person as Toah (1 Chron. 6:34) and Tohu (1 Sam. 1:1). (3) A Levite overseer in the time of Hezekiah (2 Chron. 31:13).
A spy from the tribe of Naphtali, one of twelve sent by Moses to reconnoiter the promised land (Num. 13:14).
(1) A descendant of Shem, he was the son of Serug, father of Terah, and grandfather of Abraham (Gen. 11:22–25). (2) The son of Terah and the brother of Abraham and Haran (Gen. 11:26). Nahor married Milkah, the daughter of his deceased brother, Haran (Gen. 11:28–32). When Abraham headed west for the land of Canaan (Gen. 12:1, 4), Nahor remained in the city of Harran. Through his wife, Milkah, Nahor fathered eight sons, and he fathered another four through his concubine, Reumah (Gen. 22:20–24). Bethuel, one of Nahor’s sons through Milkah, fathered Rebekah, who became the wife of Isaac, Abraham’s son (Gen. 24:15, 67). Relations between Nahor’s eastern branch of the family and Abraham’s western branch apparently ceased when Laban, Nahor’s grandson, had a falling out with Jacob, Abraham’s grandson, in which Laban called on the Lord (Abraham’s God) and on Nahor’s god to judge between the two parties (Gen. 31:53). (3) “The town of Nahor” is a town in northwest Mesopotamia, where Abraham’s servant encounters Rebekah at the well (Gen. 24:10). “Nahor” may be the name of the town, or the text is simply referring to the town where Nahor once lived (so GNT, NLT).
The son of Amminadab, the father of Salmon, and an ancestor of David and Jesus (Ruth 4:20; 1 Chron. 2:10–11; Matt. 1:4; Luke 3:32). He was a tribal leader for Judah in the exodus (Num. 2:3; 7:12–17; 10:14), a brother-in-law to Aaron (Exod. 6:23 [KJV: “Naashon”]), and an assistant in the census conducted by Moses and Aaron (Num. 1:7).
Several different Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek biblical words are translated into English as “nail.” First, there are the common fasteners that attach one item to another (Jer. 10:4), often made of iron to join pieces of wood (1 Chron. 22:3; Isa. 41:7), or even made of gold to overlay sheets of gold (2 Chron. 3:9). The writer of Ecclesiastes speaks metaphorically of wise sayings as “firmly embedded nails” (Eccles. 12:11). Roman soldiers fastened Jesus to the cross with nails (John 20:25). Second, there are pegs either driven into walls from which people hung items (Isa. 22:25; Ezek. 15:3) or used to anchor tents (Isa. 33:20). The tent pegs for the tabernacle were made of bronze (Exod. 27:19), and Jael used a tent peg to kill Sisera (Judg. 4:21–22). Isaiah speaks metaphorically of Eliakim as one whom God will drive “like a peg into a firm place” (Isa. 22:23). Finally, there are the nails of fingers (Dan. 4:33). Deuteronomy prescribes the trimming of nails as part of the purification process for Israelite men to marry captive women (Deut. 21:12).
Just north of Mount Moreh lies Nain; to the southwest was Shunem. When Jesus brought a widow’s son back to life, the crowd declared that a prophet had arisen (Luke 7:11–17), remembering Elisha’s restoration of the Shunammite woman’s son (2 Kings 4).
A site in or near Ramah in the central hill country of Benjamin. The prophet Samuel lived in Ramah, approximately six miles north of Jerusalem. Samuel and David fled from Saul to “Naioth at Ramah,” perhaps a section of the town or a house of instruction in Ramah, or even a shepherds’ camp nearby where Samuel supervised a prophetic community (1 Sam. 19:18–20:1).
Refers to genitals and buttocks (Nah. 3:5) and, since Adam’s sin, is synonymous with shame. The image of God, originally created good, was damaged by sin and death.
Located between Baalah of Judah (Kiriath Jearim) and Jerusalem, the “threshing floor of Nakon” is mentioned in the account of David’s transport of the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6:6). Here Uzzah reached out his hand to steady the ark and was struck dead by God for his irreverence. “Nakon” may be a place name or the name of the owner of the threshing floor. It is identified as the threshing floor of Kidon in the parallel account in Chronicles (1 Chron. 13:9).
The act of giving a specific term of identification to someone or something. Naming is a notable feature of biblical narrative. From the beginning, God orders and structures creation by naming the things that he makes, from the elements of nature to humankind (Gen. 1:5, 10; 5:2). As his ruling representative, Adam is granted the privilege of naming the animals (1:27–28; 2:19–20). He later names his wife, both as a being and as a person (2:23; 3:20). Eve, in turn, names Seth after losing Abel to the murderous rage of his brother Cain (4:25). With the naming of people, what is notable is that in each case the name clearly is chosen for a reason: the name has significance for the person, revealing something significant about character, role, or destiny.
The patriarchal narratives of Genesis are notable in this regard. In Gen. 17 both Abram and Sarai receive name changes, to the more familiar “Abraham” and “Sarah.” No particular explanation is given in her case, but “Abraham” is explained in terms of God’s promise of numerous descendants, “father of many” (17:5). Later in the conversation, God decrees that the name of the promised son will be “Isaac.” The name means “he laughs,” and it is chosen initially in response to Abraham’s laughter at the idea of having a son in his old age (17:17, 19). When Isaac is born, Sarah describes it as the laughter of joyful surprise (21:6–7). But when Ishmael engages in some less innocent “laughing” about Isaac, it becomes the occasion of Ishmael’s expulsion along with his mother (21:8–14). In the next generation, Esau is named for his red, hairy appearance—something that will be important on a later occasion (25:25; 27:5–23). His twin brother’s name is both more symbolic and more suggestive of character, as Esau himself acknowledges (25:26; 27:34–36).
The NT also has its cases of notable naming. The apostles express appreciation for the edifying spirit of a believer named “Joseph” by calling him “Barnabas,” which means “son of encouragement” (Acts 4:36). Likewise, Jesus marks Simon’s recognition of his identity by naming him “Peter” (Aram. Cepha; Gk. Petros—both mean “rock”). Jesus himself is the supreme example of having been given a meaningful name (Matt. 1:20–21), though it should be noted that his Hebrew name, “Joshua” (yehoshua’, “Yahweh saves/is salvation”), was common in Jewish culture. This is why others usually referred to him by some descriptive phrase, such as “Jesus of Nazareth” or “Jesus, who is called Messiah.”
Places also receive names, often as a result of some encounter with God. Jacob gives the name “Bethel” to the spot where God first spoke with him (Gen. 28:16–19). The names that Moses gives to some locations of the wilderness journey are tragically indicative of Israel’s frequent disobedience during that time (Exod. 17:1–17; Num. 11:3–5, 18–20, 31–34).
The names of God given in the Bible are an important means of revelation about his character and works. The names come from three sources: God himself, those who encounter him in the biblical record, and the biblical writers. This article is concerned mainly with the names that occur in the OT, though the NT will be referenced when helpful.
In the Bible the meaning of names is often significant and points to the character of the person so named. As might be expected, this is especially true for God. The names that he gives to himself always are a form of revelation; the names that humans give to God often are a form of testimony.
Yahweh: The Lord
Pronunciation. Unquestionably, for OT revelation the most important name is “(the) Lord.” In English Bibles this represents the name declared by God to Moses at the burning bush (“I am who I am” [Exod. 3:13–15]) and the related term used elsewhere in the OT; in Hebrew this term consists of the four consonants YHWH and is therefore known as the Tetragrammaton (“four letters”). Hebrew does not count vowels as part of its alphabet; in biblical times one simply wrote the consonants of a word and the reader supplied the correct vowels by knowing the vocabulary, grammar, and context. However, to avoid violating the commandment in the Decalogue that prohibits the misuse of God’s name (Exod. 20:7; Deut. 5:11), the Jews stopped pronouncing it. Consequently, no one today knows its correct original pronunciation, but the best evidence available suggests “Yahweh,” which has become the conventional pronunciation (consider the Hebrew word “hallelujah,” which actually is “hallelu-Yah,” hence “praise the Lord”). In ancient Jewish tradition, “Adonai” (“my Lord”) was substituted for “Yahweh.” In fact, when Hebrew eventually developed a vowel notation system, instead of the vowels for “Yahweh,” the vowels for “Adonai” were indicated whenever YHWH appeared in the biblical text, as a reminder. Combining the consonants YHWH with the vowels of “Adonai” yields something like “Yehowah,” which is the origin of the familiar (but mistaken and nonexistent) “Jehovah.” English Bibles typically use “Lord” (small capital letters) for “Yahweh,” and “Lord” (regular letters) for “Adonai,” which distinguishes the two.
Meaning. More vital than the matter of the pronunciation of YHWH is the question of its meaning. There seem to be two main opinions. One sees YHWH as denoting eternal self-existence, partly because it is suggested by the grammar of Exod. 3:14 (the words “I am” use a form of the Hebrew verb that suggests being without beginning or end) and partly because that is the meaning Jesus apparently ascribes to it in John 8:58. The other opinion, suggested by usage, is that YHWH indicates dynamic, active, divine presence: God’s being present in a special way to act on someone’s behalf (e.g., Gen. 26:28; 39:2–3; Josh. 6:27; 1 Sam. 18:12–14). This idea also appears in the episode of the burning bush (Exod. 3:12): when Moses protests his inadequacy to confront Pharaoh, God assures him of his presence, a reality noted with other prophets (1 Sam. 3:19; Jer. 1:8).
Perhaps the best points of reference for understanding the meaning of YHWH are God’s own proclamations. In addition to Exod. 3:13–15, at least two other passages in Exodus give God’s commentary (as it were) about the meaning of his name. An important one is Exod. 34:5–7. A key passage in the theology proper of ancient Israel, its themes echo in later OT Scripture (Num. 14:18–19; Ps. 103:7–12; Jon. 4:2). What is noteworthy about the texts cited is that all of them say something remarkable about the grace of God. This fits, for the revelation of Exod. 34:5–7 is given in the context of covenant renewal after the incident of the golden calf. Moses invokes God’s name in the Numbers text to avoid catastrophic judgment when the Israelites refuse to enter the promised land. The psalm text picks up this theme and connects it with God’s revelation of his ways to the chosen people. Jonah, remarkably, affirms that the same grace extends even toward a wicked Gentile city such as Nineveh.
Another such passage is Exod. 6:2–8. Here God reaffirms his redemptive purpose for captive Israel, despite the fact that Moses’ first encounter with Pharaoh has not gone well. God assures the prophet that he has remembered his covenant with the patriarchs, whom he says did not know him as “Yahweh,” which probably means that the patriarchs did not experience him in the way or character that their descendants would in the exodus event (though it is possible to translate the Hebrew here as a rhetorical question with an affirmative idea: “And indeed, by my name Yahweh did I not make myself known to them?”). God then proceeds to outline the redemptive experience in its fullness: deliverance from bondage, reception into a covenant relationship, and possession of the land promised to their ancestors (vv. 6–8). The statement is bracketed with this declaration: “I am the Lord” (vv. 2, 8). One stated purpose of this redemptive work is that Israel might come to understand this (v. 7). This is important to note because a central theme of Exodus as a book is the identity of the God of Israel. This concern prompts Moses to ask for God’s name at the burning bush (3:13), and this contempt for the God of the enslaved Hebrews causes Pharaoh to be dismissive at his first meeting with Moses and Aaron (5:2). Moses asks with the concern of a seeker and receives one of the most profound declarations of God’s identity in the Bible. Pharaoh asks with the contempt of a scorner and receives one of the most powerful displays of God’s identity in the Bible (the plagues). The contrast is both striking and instructive. The meaning of God’s name, then, is revealed in works as well as words, and his purpose is that not just his people but all peoples may come to understand who he is. Yet another majestic statement in the book of Exodus (9:13–16) makes this abundantly clear.
Based on this pattern of usage, the name “Yahweh” seems to signify especially the active presence of God to bless, deliver, or otherwise aid his people. Where this presence is absent, there is no success, victory, protection, or peace (Num. 14:39–45; Josh. 7:10–12; Judg. 16:20; 1 Sam. 16:13–14). The message that God not only is but also is present to save and deliver may well be the most important truth communicated in the OT, and it is only natural to see its ultimate embodiment in the person and work of Christ (Isa. 7:14; cf. Matt. 1:21–23).
Name used in combination. The name “Yahweh” also is used in combination with other terms. After God grants a military victory to Israel over the Amalekites, Moses names a commemorative altar “Yahweh Nissi,” meaning “the Lord is my Banner” (Exod. 17:15). In Ezekiel’s temple vision Jerusalem is called “Yahweh Shammah,” meaning “the Lord is there” (Ezek. 48:35). A familiar expression is “the Lord of hosts,” which is generally comparable to the expression “commander in chief” used in American culture (cf. 1 Kings 22:19–23).
Elohim
This is the first term for God encountered in the Bible, right in the opening verse. It is a more generic term, denoting deity in contrast to humans or angels. “Elohim” is a plural form; the singular terms “El” and “Eloah” are used occasionally, particularly in poetic texts. “El” is a common term in the biblical world; in fact, it is the name for the father of Baal in the Canaanite religion. This may explain why the Bible commonly uses the plural form, to distinguish the one true God, the God of Israel, from his pagan rivals. Others explain the plural form as a “plural of majesty” or “plural of intensity,” though it is uncertain just what this would mean. Some see the foundation for NT revelation of the Trinity (Gen. 1:26–27; 11:6–7; cf. John 17:20–22), but this is unlikely. The plural form also can serve simply as a common noun, referring to pagan deities (Exod. 12:12), angels (Ps. 97:7, arguably), or even human authorities (Exod. 22:28, possibly).
“El” also occurs in combination with other descriptive terms. The best known is “El Shaddai,” meaning “God Almighty” (Gen. 17:1). The precise meaning of “Shaddai” is uncertain, but it seems to have the notion of “great/powerful one.” The distressed Hagar, caught, comforted, and counseled by the mysterious personage at a well, calls God “El Roi,” which means “the God who sees me” (Gen. 16:13). One of the most exalted expressions to describe God is “El Elyon,” meaning “God Most High.” This title seems to have particular reference to God as the owner and master of creation (Gen. 14:18–20).
Adonai
As noted above, this common word meaning simply “(my) lord/master” is used regularly in place of the personal name of God revealed to Moses in Exod. 3:14. And in the OT of most English Bibles this is indicated by printing “Lord” as opposed to “Lord” (using small capital letters). However, “Adonai” is used of God in some noteworthy instances, such as Isaiah’s lofty vision of God exalted in Isa. 6 and the prophecy of Immanuel in Isa. 7:14. In time, this became the preferred term for referring to God, and the LXX reflected this by using the Greek word kyrios (“lord”) for Yahweh. This makes the ease with which NT writers transfer the use of the term to Jesus (e.g., 1 Cor. 12:3) a strong indication of their Christology.
The names of God given in the Bible are an important means of revelation about his character and works. The names come from three sources: God himself, those who encounter him in the biblical record, and the biblical writers. This article is concerned mainly with the names that occur in the OT, though the NT will be referenced when helpful.
In the Bible the meaning of names is often significant and points to the character of the person so named. As might be expected, this is especially true for God. The names that he gives to himself always are a form of revelation; the names that humans give to God often are a form of testimony.
Yahweh: The Lord
Pronunciation. Unquestionably, for OT revelation the most important name is “(the) Lord.” In English Bibles this represents the name declared by God to Moses at the burning bush (“I am who I am” [Exod. 3:13–15]) and the related term used elsewhere in the OT; in Hebrew this term consists of the four consonants YHWH and is therefore known as the Tetragrammaton (“four letters”). Hebrew does not count vowels as part of its alphabet; in biblical times one simply wrote the consonants of a word and the reader supplied the correct vowels by knowing the vocabulary, grammar, and context. However, to avoid violating the commandment in the Decalogue that prohibits the misuse of God’s name (Exod. 20:7; Deut. 5:11), the Jews stopped pronouncing it. Consequently, no one today knows its correct original pronunciation, but the best evidence available suggests “Yahweh,” which has become the conventional pronunciation (consider the Hebrew word “hallelujah,” which actually is “hallelu-Yah,” hence “praise the Lord”). In ancient Jewish tradition, “Adonai” (“my Lord”) was substituted for “Yahweh.” In fact, when Hebrew eventually developed a vowel notation system, instead of the vowels for “Yahweh,” the vowels for “Adonai” were indicated whenever YHWH appeared in the biblical text, as a reminder. Combining the consonants YHWH with the vowels of “Adonai” yields something like “Yehowah,” which is the origin of the familiar (but mistaken and nonexistent) “Jehovah.” English Bibles typically use “Lord” (small capital letters) for “Yahweh,” and “Lord” (regular letters) for “Adonai,” which distinguishes the two.
Meaning. More vital than the matter of the pronunciation of YHWH is the question of its meaning. There seem to be two main opinions. One sees YHWH as denoting eternal self-existence, partly because it is suggested by the grammar of Exod. 3:14 (the words “I am” use a form of the Hebrew verb that suggests being without beginning or end) and partly because that is the meaning Jesus apparently ascribes to it in John 8:58. The other opinion, suggested by usage, is that YHWH indicates dynamic, active, divine presence: God’s being present in a special way to act on someone’s behalf (e.g., Gen. 26:28; 39:2–3; Josh. 6:27; 1 Sam. 18:12–14). This idea also appears in the episode of the burning bush (Exod. 3:12): when Moses protests his inadequacy to confront Pharaoh, God assures him of his presence, a reality noted with other prophets (1 Sam. 3:19; Jer. 1:8).
Perhaps the best points of reference for understanding the meaning of YHWH are God’s own proclamations. In addition to Exod. 3:13–15, at least two other passages in Exodus give God’s commentary (as it were) about the meaning of his name. An important one is Exod. 34:5–7. A key passage in the theology proper of ancient Israel, its themes echo in later OT Scripture (Num. 14:18–19; Ps. 103:7–12; Jon. 4:2). What is noteworthy about the texts cited is that all of them say something remarkable about the grace of God. This fits, for the revelation of Exod. 34:5–7 is given in the context of covenant renewal after the incident of the golden calf. Moses invokes God’s name in the Numbers text to avoid catastrophic judgment when the Israelites refuse to enter the promised land. The psalm text picks up this theme and connects it with God’s revelation of his ways to the chosen people. Jonah, remarkably, affirms that the same grace extends even toward a wicked Gentile city such as Nineveh.
Another such passage is Exod. 6:2–8. Here God reaffirms his redemptive purpose for captive Israel, despite the fact that Moses’ first encounter with Pharaoh has not gone well. God assures the prophet that he has remembered his covenant with the patriarchs, whom he says did not know him as “Yahweh,” which probably means that the patriarchs did not experience him in the way or character that their descendants would in the exodus event (though it is possible to translate the Hebrew here as a rhetorical question with an affirmative idea: “And indeed, by my name Yahweh did I not make myself known to them?”). God then proceeds to outline the redemptive experience in its fullness: deliverance from bondage, reception into a covenant relationship, and possession of the land promised to their ancestors (vv. 6–8). The statement is bracketed with this declaration: “I am the Lord” (vv. 2, 8). One stated purpose of this redemptive work is that Israel might come to understand this (v. 7). This is important to note because a central theme of Exodus as a book is the identity of the God of Israel. This concern prompts Moses to ask for God’s name at the burning bush (3:13), and this contempt for the God of the enslaved Hebrews causes Pharaoh to be dismissive at his first meeting with Moses and Aaron (5:2). Moses asks with the concern of a seeker and receives one of the most profound declarations of God’s identity in the Bible. Pharaoh asks with the contempt of a scorner and receives one of the most powerful displays of God’s identity in the Bible (the plagues). The contrast is both striking and instructive. The meaning of God’s name, then, is revealed in works as well as words, and his purpose is that not just his people but all peoples may come to understand who he is. Yet another majestic statement in the book of Exodus (9:13–16) makes this abundantly clear.
Based on this pattern of usage, the name “Yahweh” seems to signify especially the active presence of God to bless, deliver, or otherwise aid his people. Where this presence is absent, there is no success, victory, protection, or peace (Num. 14:39–45; Josh. 7:10–12; Judg. 16:20; 1 Sam. 16:13–14). The message that God not only is but also is present to save and deliver may well be the most important truth communicated in the OT, and it is only natural to see its ultimate embodiment in the person and work of Christ (Isa. 7:14; cf. Matt. 1:21–23).
Name used in combination. The name “Yahweh” also is used in combination with other terms. After God grants a military victory to Israel over the Amalekites, Moses names a commemorative altar “Yahweh Nissi,” meaning “the Lord is my Banner” (Exod. 17:15). In Ezekiel’s temple vision Jerusalem is called “Yahweh Shammah,” meaning “the Lord is there” (Ezek. 48:35). A familiar expression is “the Lord of hosts,” which is generally comparable to the expression “commander in chief” used in American culture (cf. 1 Kings 22:19–23).
Elohim
This is the first term for God encountered in the Bible, right in the opening verse. It is a more generic term, denoting deity in contrast to humans or angels. “Elohim” is a plural form; the singular terms “El” and “Eloah” are used occasionally, particularly in poetic texts. “El” is a common term in the biblical world; in fact, it is the name for the father of Baal in the Canaanite religion. This may explain why the Bible commonly uses the plural form, to distinguish the one true God, the God of Israel, from his pagan rivals. Others explain the plural form as a “plural of majesty” or “plural of intensity,” though it is uncertain just what this would mean. Some see the foundation for NT revelation of the Trinity (Gen. 1:26–27; 11:6–7; cf. John 17:20–22), but this is unlikely. The plural form also can serve simply as a common noun, referring to pagan deities (Exod. 12:12), angels (Ps. 97:7, arguably), or even human authorities (Exod. 22:28, possibly).
“El” also occurs in combination with other descriptive terms. The best known is “El Shaddai,” meaning “God Almighty” (Gen. 17:1). The precise meaning of “Shaddai” is uncertain, but it seems to have the notion of “great/powerful one.” The distressed Hagar, caught, comforted, and counseled by the mysterious personage at a well, calls God “El Roi,” which means “the God who sees me” (Gen. 16:13). One of the most exalted expressions to describe God is “El Elyon,” meaning “God Most High.” This title seems to have particular reference to God as the owner and master of creation (Gen. 14:18–20).
Adonai
As noted above, this common word meaning simply “(my) lord/master” is used regularly in place of the personal name of God revealed to Moses in Exod. 3:14. And in the OT of most English Bibles this is indicated by printing “Lord” as opposed to “Lord” (using small capital letters). However, “Adonai” is used of God in some noteworthy instances, such as Isaiah’s lofty vision of God exalted in Isa. 6 and the prophecy of Immanuel in Isa. 7:14. In time, this became the preferred term for referring to God, and the LXX reflected this by using the Greek word kyrios (“lord”) for Yahweh. This makes the ease with which NT writers transfer the use of the term to Jesus (e.g., 1 Cor. 12:3) a strong indication of their Christology.
The act of giving a specific term of identification to someone or something. Naming is a notable feature of biblical narrative. From the beginning, God orders and structures creation by naming the things that he makes, from the elements of nature to humankind (Gen. 1:5, 10; 5:2). As his ruling representative, Adam is granted the privilege of naming the animals (1:27–28; 2:19–20). He later names his wife, both as a being and as a person (2:23; 3:20). Eve, in turn, names Seth after losing Abel to the murderous rage of his brother Cain (4:25). With the naming of people, what is notable is that in each case the name clearly is chosen for a reason: the name has significance for the person, revealing something significant about character, role, or destiny.
The patriarchal narratives of Genesis are notable in this regard. In Gen. 17 both Abram and Sarai receive name changes, to the more familiar “Abraham” and “Sarah.” No particular explanation is given in her case, but “Abraham” is explained in terms of God’s promise of numerous descendants, “father of many” (17:5). Later in the conversation, God decrees that the name of the promised son will be “Isaac.” The name means “he laughs,” and it is chosen initially in response to Abraham’s laughter at the idea of having a son in his old age (17:17, 19). When Isaac is born, Sarah describes it as the laughter of joyful surprise (21:6–7). But when Ishmael engages in some less innocent “laughing” about Isaac, it becomes the occasion of Ishmael’s expulsion along with his mother (21:8–14). In the next generation, Esau is named for his red, hairy appearance—something that will be important on a later occasion (25:25; 27:5–23). His twin brother’s name is both more symbolic and more suggestive of character, as Esau himself acknowledges (25:26; 27:34–36).
The NT also has its cases of notable naming. The apostles express appreciation for the edifying spirit of a believer named “Joseph” by calling him “Barnabas,” which means “son of encouragement” (Acts 4:36). Likewise, Jesus marks Simon’s recognition of his identity by naming him “Peter” (Aram. Cepha; Gk. Petros—both mean “rock”). Jesus himself is the supreme example of having been given a meaningful name (Matt. 1:20–21), though it should be noted that his Hebrew name, “Joshua” (yehoshua’, “Yahweh saves/is salvation”), was common in Jewish culture. This is why others usually referred to him by some descriptive phrase, such as “Jesus of Nazareth” or “Jesus, who is called Messiah.”
Places also receive names, often as a result of some encounter with God. Jacob gives the name “Bethel” to the spot where God first spoke with him (Gen. 28:16–19). The names that Moses gives to some locations of the wilderness journey are tragically indicative of Israel’s frequent disobedience during that time (Exod. 17:1–17; Num. 11:3–5, 18–20, 31–34).
This expression means “hills or heights of Dor.” It occurs in Josh. 11:2; 12:23; 1 Kings 4:11. Dor was an important city on the northern coastline of Israel, about fifty miles southwest of Hazor and just south of the Phoenician border. It fell within the tribal territory of western Manasseh (Josh. 17:11).
A descendant of Ishmael, Abraham’s son through Hagar. He is listed in the genealogies of Gen. 25:15; 1 Chron. 1:31. His descendants were defeated by the eastern Israelite tribes prior to the conquest (1 Chron. 5:19).
This expression means “hills or heights of Dor.” It occurs in Josh. 11:2; 12:23; 1 Kings 4:11. Dor was an important city on the northern coastline of Israel, about fifty miles southwest of Hazor and just south of the Phoenician border. It fell within the tribal territory of western Manasseh (Josh. 17:11).
The fourth son of Israel (Jacob) and the progenitor of the tribe that bears his name. He was the second surrogate son of Rachel through her maidservant Bilhah (Gen. 30:7–8).
Descendants of Ham mentioned twice in the Bible, both in genealogies (Gen. 10:13; 1 Chron. 1:11). They are traced from Ham through “Mizraim,” which is the Hebrew word for “Egypt.” This seems to suggest an origin in northern Egypt (the Nile Delta). “Naphtuhite” may contain the name of the Egyptian god Ptah, whose sacred city was Memphis, in the Nile Delta area.
The believers within the household of Narcissus are mentioned in Paul’s greetings in Rom. 16:11. The phrase “those in the household of Narcissus” refers to the slaves and freedmen or freedwomen of Narcissus, while the phrase “in the Lord” specifies those of them who were Christians. The servants of Narcissus’s household who became Christians formed a house church in Rome. Other house churches mentioned by Paul in these closing greetings include that of Priscilla and Aquila. Paul does not specify whether Narcissus himself was a Christian.
A high-quality and fragrant ointment or perfume, also known as spikenard. Song of Songs includes nard among fragrant items used metaphorically by the lover to describe his beloved (Song 4:13–14). Mark 14:3 and John 12:3 refer to the same incident, the anointing of Jesus at Bethany a few days before the crucifixion, and emphasize the high monetary value of the nard.
(1) The prophet Nathan was consulted by David when he contemplated building a temple to house the ark (2 Sam. 7). Without consulting God, Nathan encouraged David in this laudable project, suggesting that in the prophet’s mind the project was so obviously right (acknowledging as it did God’s supreme kingship over the nation) that there was no need to ask God. However, an unexpected divine refusal came that same night. A divine speech, long by biblical narrative standards (twelve verses), was required to explain the baffling divine refusal. The problem with the project was that the time was not ripe (2 Sam. 7:11; cf. 7:1), for David still had battles to fight.
Nathan reappears in biblical narrative in 2 Sam. 12, sent by God to rebuke David for taking Bathsheba (this confrontation is alluded to in the superscription of Ps. 51). These interventions of Nathan came at David’s high point and low point. Nathan’s parable about the “little ewe lamb” caused David to incriminate himself and pronounce his own sentence. David, on his immediate repentance, was forgiven (v. 13), but the rest of his reign was the working out of the punishment pronounced by Nathan: “The sword will never depart from your house” (v. 10). Nathan predicted the death of the son born from the illicit union (v. 14). Later, God sent word through Nathan that a second son, Solomon, was to be named “Jedidiah” (“loved by the Lord”) (v. 25; see NIV footnote). Nathan, in collusion with Bathsheba, took Solomon’s part in the competition for the throne (1 Kings 1). Nathan and the priest Zadok anointed Solomon king at Gihon (1 Kings 1:45). He also had a role in David’s ordering of the Levites (2 Chron. 29:25). Nathan is the reputed author of a book of chronicles about David’s reign (1 Chron. 29:29) and a history about Solomon’s (2 Chron. 9:29).
Presumably, the Nathan of 1 Kings 4:5 is the prophet, whose son Azariah was in charge of Solomon’s district officers. Zabud, another son, was a priest (here this refers to a chief officer) and personal adviser (cf. Hushai’s role in 2 Sam. 15:37) under Solomon. There is mention of “the house of Nathan” as still prominent in the postexilic period (Zech. 12:12).
(2) A son of David, born in Jerusalem (2 Sam. 5:14; 1 Chron. 3:5; 14:4), he is in the genealogy of Jesus (Luke 3:31). (3) The father of Igal, one of David’s thirty mighty warriors (2 Sam. 23:36). (4) A Judahite, the son of Attai and father of Zabad (1 Chron. 2:36). (5) The brother of Joel, one of David’s mighty warriors (1 Chron. 11:38). (6) One of the leaders enlisted by Ezra to seek Levites willing to return to Jerusalem (Ezra 8:16). (7) One of the men who were guilty of taking a foreign wife during the time of Ezra (Ezra 10:39).
An official who lived in the Jerusalem temple and whose room was in close proximity to an object used for sun worship. King Josiah removed it from the temple during his reformation (2 Kings 23:11).
An official who lived in the Jerusalem temple and whose room was in close proximity to an object used for sun worship. King Josiah removed it from the temple during his reformation (2 Kings 23:11).
One of Jesus’ disciples, mentioned by name only in John 1:45–49; 21:2. He was from Cana in Galilee (21:2), where Jesus changed water into wine. Nathanael was initially skeptical of Philip’s claims about Jesus because Jesus was from Nazareth (1:45–46), but his skepticism turned to belief when Jesus, who called Nathanael “truly . . . an Israelite in whom there is no deceit,” demonstrated miraculous knowledge of where Nathanael had been sitting before he met Jesus (1:47–49). Nathanael quickly declared his faith in Jesus. As a result of Nathanael’s ready faith, Jesus promised him that he would be witness to Jesus’ salvific work and the miraculous transformation of the broken relationship between God and humankind (John 1:50). Nathanael was one of the first disciples to see the risen Jesus (John 21:1–4).
Nathanael was most likely the same person as Bartholomew (Matt. 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13), given that John never mentions Bartholomew and the Synoptic Gospels never mention Nathanael, and that the Synoptic Gospels list Bartholomew’s name directly after Philip’s, while John connects Nathanael and Philip in his narrative.
The word “Gentiles” is often used to translate words meaning “nations” or “peoples.” It has a Latin etymology from gens, meaning “clan” or “family” and, eventually, “race” or “people.” The Greek word genos (“race, kind”) has a close relationship. In the Bible it loosely refers to nations or peoples other than Israel. English Bibles often translate it as “nations,” “peoples,” or “races.”
Old Testament
In general, within the OT, Gentiles are not God’s people. God chose Israel to be his people, not other nations (Deut. 7:6–8; 10:15; 26:18–19). Israelite ancestry determines membership in the covenant people. Some writings thus forbid Gentiles from becoming part of God’s people (Ezra 9–10; Neh. 13).
The OT more commonly envisions Gentiles experiencing covenant blessing through Israel if they functionally become Israelites by keeping the law, including the parts we understand as ceremonial-ritual law. The law is that special life-giving and regulating aspect of the covenant that God revealed to Israel, which defines Israel (Lev. 18:1–5; 20:22–26; Deut. 4:1–8, 32–40; 6:24–25; 8:1–6; 10:12–11:32; 30:11–20; Josh. 1:7–9; Neh. 9:29; Pss. 119; 147:19–20; Ezek. 20:9–13, 21).
Such law/Israel-centered conditions for Gentiles relate to a broader OT understanding: God will reach and restore the world through Israel, the locus of his saving activity. God will bless the nations in and through Abraham’s descendants, Israel (Gen. 12:1–3; 17:4–6; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14). This covenant specifically involves keeping the law (e.g., circumcision [Gen. 17:9–14]). Some passages depict this happening through the nations being subject to Israel (Gen. 49:8–12; Num. 24:9, 17–19; Isa. 11:10–16; 14:2; 54:3). In other passages the nations will be blessed by Israel’s God as they come to Israel, bring back exiled Israel, serve Israel, present Israel with their own wealth, and/or fear Israel’s God (Isa. 45:23; 49:22–23; 51:4–5; 55:5; 60:3–16; 61:5–6; 66:12–13, 18–21; Mic. 7:12–17; Zech. 2:11; 8:22–23). Other passages further elucidate the law-defined nature of such Gentile participation in the God of Israel’s salvation (Exod. 12:48; Isa. 56:1–8; Jer. 12:14–17; Zech. 14:16–21). The portrait of the nations “flowing” up the mountain of God associates Gentile participation in God’s salvation explicitly with the law (Isa. 2:2–5; Mic. 4:1–5).
The Servant Songs in Isa. 40–55 also reflect this law/Israel-centered nature of salvation for the Gentiles. The servant, explicitly identified as Israel (41:8, 9; 42:18–19; 44:1–2, 21; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3; 54:17; see also 65:9; 66:14), serves as God’s instrument for reaching the nations (42:1, 6; 49:6; 52:15). The OT usually condemns Gentiles who remain separate from Israel to some form of judgment, especially Gentiles who have harmed Israel.
Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity
Second Temple Jewish sources exhibit diverse views about Gentiles, their nature, their possible relation to God, and their fate at the end. Many reflect something resembling the OT views. Israel as God’s people defined by the law, variously understood and contested among Second Temple sources, generally continues to be the locus of God’s ultimate blessing activities.
Situating Jesus and early Christianity within this matrix of Gentile sensitivities is illuminating. As the Jesus movement spread across the Mediterranean, proclaiming the ultimate salvation of the God of Israel in and through Jesus the Messiah, questions about how Gentiles experience this salvation of the Jewish God had paramount importance.
Some Christians, in line with traditional readings of the OT, thought that Gentiles must keep the law, becoming Jews to experience the God of Israel’s salvation in Jesus (Acts 11:1–3; 15:1, 5; Paul’s opponents in Galatia). Gentiles, after all, were separated from God and his salvation promises to Israel (Rom. 9:4–5; Eph. 2:11–13; 1 Pet. 2:10). They stood under God’s condemnation, especially because they were controlled by their passions and sin, lacking self-mastery and the ability to live rightly (Rom. 1:18–32; Eph. 4:17–19; 1 Thess. 4:5; 1 Pet. 1:14, 18).
However, various NT authors, such as Paul, contend that Gentiles need not keep the law, functionally becoming Jews, in order to participate in God’s ultimate salvation in Jesus. Christ, the climax of Israel itself, has replaced the law’s centrality and ultimacy with himself and his death and resurrection (Rom. 10:4). Through being united to Christ by the Spirit, Gentiles are, apart from the law, grafted into true, redefined Israel and become Abraham’s descendants, inheriting God’s promised salvation for Israel (Rom. 3:21–4:25; 8:1–17; 9:30–10:17; 11:13–32; Gal. 2:11–4:7; Eph. 2:11–22; 3:4–6). In Christ, by the Spirit, Gentiles attain self-mastery over their passions and sin and thus live rightly before God, inheriting the kingdom of God in Christ (Rom. 6:1–8:30; 1 Cor. 6:9–11; Gal. 5:16–26; 1 Thess. 4:3–8). Various NT writings thus reconfigure the situation of Gentiles with respect to Israel’s God because of what God did in Christ.
Debates about Gentiles, the law, salvation, and what Christ means for these issues persisted after Paul. Early Christians lacked an unequivocal saying from Jesus on the matter, and not all accepted Paul and some other NT writings.
As an adjective, “native” refers to being born or originating in a particular place (Gen. 24:7; 31:13; Num. 22:5). As a noun, it refers to those who were born in or are original inhabitants of a particular place. Several Bible versions refer to local people of Malta, where Paul stops on his journey to Rome, as “natives” (Acts 28:4 NASB, RSV, NRSV, NAB [Gk. barbaroi, meaning “barbarians, foreigners”]). Other versions use “islanders” (NIV), “local people” (HCSB), or “people of the island” (NLT).
The founder of what became known as the movement of Jesus followers or Christianity. For Christian believers, Jesus Christ embodies the personal and supernatural intervention of God in human history.
Introduction
Name. Early Christians combined the name “Jesus” with the title “Christ” (Acts 5:42; NIV: “Messiah”). The name “Jesus,” from the Hebrew Yehoshua or Yeshua, was a common male name in first-century Judaism. The title “Christ” is from the Greek christos, a translation of the Hebrew mashiakh (“anointed one, messiah”). Christians eventually were named after Jesus’ title (Acts 11:26). During the ministry of Jesus, Peter was the first disciple to recognize Jesus as the Messiah (Matt. 16:16; Mark 9:29; Luke 9:20).
Sources. From the viewpoint of Christianity, the life and ministry of Jesus constitute the turning point in human history. From a historical perspective, ample early source materials would be expected. Indeed, both Christian and non-Christian first-century and early second-century literary sources are extant, but they are few in number. In part, this low incidence is due to society’s initial resistance to the Jesus followers’ movement. The ancient Roman historian Tacitus called Christianity “a superstition,” since its beliefs did not fit with the culture’s prevailing worldview and thus were considered antisocial. Early literary sources therefore are either in-group documents or allusions in non-Christian sources.
The NT Gospels are the principal sources for the life and ministry of Jesus. They consist of Matthew, Mark, Luke (the Synoptic Gospels), and John. Most scholars adhere to the so-called Four Source Hypothesis. In this theory, Mark was written first and was used as a source by Matthew and Luke, who also used the sayings source Q (from German Quelle, meaning “source”) as well as their own individual sources M (Matthew) and L (Luke). John used additional sources.
The early church tried to put together singular accounts, so-called Gospel harmonies, of the life of Jesus. The Gospel of the Ebionites represents one such attempt based on the Synoptic Gospels. Another harmony, the Diatessaron, based on all four Gospels, was produced around AD 170 by Tatian. Additional source materials concerning the life of Christ are provided in the NT in texts such as Acts, the Pauline Epistles, the General Epistles, and the Revelation of John. Paul wrote to the Galatians, “But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law” (Gal. 4:4). The first narrative about Jesus by the Christian community was a passion narrative, the account of his death and resurrection. The first extant references to this tradition are found in Paul’s letters (1 Cor. 2:2; Gal. 3:1). The resurrection was recognized from the beginning as the cornerstone of the Christian faith (1 Cor. 15:13–14).
Among non-Christian sources, the earliest reference to Jesus is found in a letter written circa AD 112 by Pliny the Younger, the Roman governor of Bithynia-Pontus (Ep. 10.96). The Roman historian Tacitus mentions Christians and Jesus around AD 115 in his famous work about the history of Rome (Ann. 15.44). Another Roman historian, Suetonius, wrote around the same time concerning unrest among the Jews in Rome because of a certain “Chrestos” (Claud. 25.4). Some scholars conclude that “Chrestos” is a misspelling of “Christos,” a reference to Jesus.
The Jewish author Josephus (first century AD) mentions Jesus in a story about the Jewish high priest Ananus and James the brother of Jesus (Ant. 20.200). A controversial reference to Jesus appears in a different part of the same work, where Josephus affirms that Jesus is the Messiah and that he rose from the dead (Ant. 18.63–64). The majority of scholars consider this passage to be authentic but heavily edited by later Christian copyists. Another Jewish source, the Talmud, also mentions Jesus in several places, but these references are very late and of little historical value.
Noncanonical Gospels that mention Jesus include, for example, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of James, the Gospel of Judas Iscariot, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Egerton Gospel, and the Gospel of Judas. Although some of these may contain an occasional authentic saying or event, for the most part they are late and unreliable.
Jesus’ Life
Birth and childhood. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke record Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem during the reign of Herod the Great (Matt. 2:1; Luke 2:4, 11). Jesus was probably born between 6 and 4 BC, shortly before Herod’s death (Matt. 2:19). Both Matthew and Luke record the miracle of a virginal conception made possible by the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:18; Luke 1:35). Luke mentions a census under the Syrian governor Quirinius that was responsible for Jesus’ birth taking place in Bethlehem (2:1–5). Both the census and the governorship at the time of the birth of Jesus have been questioned by scholars. Unfortunately, there is not enough extrabiblical evidence to either confirm or disprove these events, so their veracity must be determined on the basis of one’s view regarding the general reliability of the Gospel tradition.
On the eighth day after his birth, Jesus was circumcised, in keeping with the Jewish law, at which time he officially was named “Jesus” (Luke 2:21). He spent his growing years in Nazareth, in the home of his parents, Joseph and Mary (2:40). Of the NT Gospels, the Gospel of Luke contains the only brief portrayal of Jesus’ growth in strength, wisdom, and favor with God and people (2:40, 52). Luke also contains the only account of Jesus as a young boy (2:41–49).
Jesus was born in a lower socioeconomic setting. His parents offered a temple sacrifice appropriate for those who could not afford to sacrifice a sheep (Luke 2:22–24; cf. Lev. 12:8). Joseph, Jesus’ earthly father, was a carpenter or an artisan in wood, stone, or metal (Matt. 13:55). From a geographical perspective, Nazareth was not a prominent place for settling, since it lacked fertile ground. Jesus’ disciple Nathanael expressed an apparently common first-century sentiment concerning Nazareth: “Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?” (John 1:46).
Jesus was also born in a context of scandal. Questions of illegitimacy were surely raised, since his mother Mary was discovered to be pregnant before her marriage to Joseph. According to Matthew, only the intervention of an angel convinced Joseph not to break his betrothal (Matt. 1:18–24). Jesus’ birth took place in Bethlehem, far from his parents’ home in Nazareth. According to kinship hospitality customs, Joseph and Mary would have expected to stay with distant relatives in Bethlehem. It is likely that they were unwelcome because of Jesus’ status as an illegitimate child; thus Mary had to give birth elsewhere and place the infant Jesus in a feeding trough (Luke 2:7). A similar response was seen years later in Nazareth when Jesus was identified as “Mary’s son” (Mark 6:3) rather than through his paternal line, thereby shaming him as one who was born an illegitimate child. Jesus was likewise rejected at the end of his life as the crowds cried, “Crucify him!” (Matt. 27:22–23; Mark 15:13–14; Luke 23:21; John 19:6, 15). When Jesus was arrested, most of his followers fled (Matt. 26:56; Mark 14:50–52), and a core disciple, Peter, vehemently denied knowing him (Matt. 26:69–74; Mark 14:66–71; Luke 22:55–60; John 18:15–17, 25–27). His own siblings did not believe in him (John 7:5) and were evidently ashamed of his fate, since from the cross Jesus placed the care of his mother into the hands of “the disciple whom he loved” (19:26–27) rather than the next brother in line, as was customary.
Baptism, temptation, and start of ministry. After Jesus was baptized by the prophet John the Baptist (Luke 3:21–22), God affirmed his pleasure with him by referring to him as his Son, whom he loved (Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22). Jesus’ baptism did not launch him into fame and instant ministry success; instead, Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, where he was tempted for forty days (Matt. 4:1–11; Mark 1:12–13; Luke 4:1–13). Mark stresses that the temptations immediately followed the baptism. Matthew and Luke identify three specific temptations by the devil, though their order for the last two is reversed. Both Matthew and Luke agree that Jesus was tempted to turn stones into bread, expect divine intervention after jumping off the temple portico, and receive all the world’s kingdoms for worshiping the devil. Jesus resisted all temptation, quoting Scripture in response.
Matthew and Mark record that Jesus began his ministry in Capernaum in Galilee, after the arrest of John the Baptist (Matt. 4:12–13; Mark 1:14). Luke says that Jesus started his ministry at about thirty years of age (3:23). This may be meant to indicate full maturity or perhaps correlate this age with the onset of the service of the Levites in the temple (cf. Num. 4:3). John narrates the beginning of Jesus’ ministry by focusing on the calling of the disciples and the sign performed at a wedding at Cana (1:35–2:11).
Jesus’ public ministry: chronology. Jesus’ ministry started in Galilee, probably around AD 27/28, and ended with his death around AD 30 in Jerusalem. The temple had been forty-six years in construction (generally interpreted as the temple itself and the wider temple complex) when Jesus drove out the money changers (John 2:20). According to Josephus, the rebuilding and expansion of the second temple had started in 20/19 BC, during the eighteenth year of Herod’s reign (Ant. 15.380). The ministry of John the Baptist had commenced in the fifteenth year of Tiberius (Luke 3:1–2), who had become a coregent in AD 11/12. From these dates of the start of the temple building and the correlation of the reign of Tiberius to John the Baptist’s ministry, the onset of Jesus’ ministry can probably be dated to AD 27/28.
The Gospel of John mentions three Passovers and another unnamed feast in John 5:1. The length of Jesus’ ministry thus extended over three or four Passovers, equaling about three or three and a half years. Passover, which took place on the fifteenth of Nisan, came on a Friday in AD 30 and 33. The year of Jesus’ death was therefore probably AD 30.
Jesus’ ministry years may be divided broadly into his Galilean and his Judean ministries. The Synoptic Gospels describe the ministry in Galilee from various angles but converge again as Jesus enters Judea.
Galilean ministry. The early stages of Jesus’ ministry centered in and around Galilee. Jesus presented the good news and proclaimed that the kingdom of God was near. Matthew focuses on the fulfillment of prophecy (Matt. 4:13–17). Luke records Jesus’ first teaching in his hometown, Nazareth, as paradigmatic (Luke 4:16–30); the text that Jesus quoted, Isa. 61:1–2, set the stage for his calling to serve and revealed a trajectory of rejection and suffering.
All Gospels record Jesus’ gathering of disciples early in his Galilean ministry (Matt. 4:18–22; Mark 1:16–20; Luke 5:1–11; John 1:35–51). The formal call and commissioning of the Twelve who would become Jesus’ closest followers is recorded in different parts of the Gospels (Matt. 10:1–4; Mark 3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16). A key event in the early ministry is the Sermon on the Mount/Plain (Matt. 5:1–7:29; Luke 6:20–49). John focuses on Jesus’ signs and miracles, in particular in the early parts of his ministry, whereas the Synoptics focus on healings and exorcisms.
During Jesus’ Galilean ministry, onlookers struggled with his identity. However, evil spirits knew him to be of supreme authority (Mark 3:11). Jesus was criticized by outsiders and by his own family (3:21). The scribes from Jerusalem identified him as a partner of Beelzebul (3:22). Amid these situations of social conflict, Jesus told parables that couched his ministry in the context of a growing kingdom of God. This kingdom would miraculously spring from humble beginnings (4:1–32).
The Synoptics present Jesus’ early Galilean ministry as successful. No challenge or ministry need superseded Jesus’ authority or ability: he calmed a storm (Mark 4:35–39), exorcized many demons (Mark 5:1–13), raised the dead (Mark 5:35–42), fed five thousand (Mark 6:30–44), and walked on water (Mark 6:48–49).
In the later part of his ministry in Galilee, Jesus often withdrew and traveled to the north and the east. The Gospel narratives are not written with a focus on chronology. However, only brief returns to Galilee appear to have taken place prior to Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem. As people followed Jesus, faith was praised and fear resolved. Jerusalem’s religious leaders traveled to Galilee, where they leveled accusations and charged Jesus’ disciples with lacking ritual purity (Mark 7:1–5). Jesus shamed the Pharisees by pointing out their dishonorable treatment of parents (7:11–13). The Pharisees challenged his legitimacy by demanding a sign (8:11). Jesus refused them signs but agreed with Peter, who confessed, “You are the Messiah” (8:29). Jesus did provide the disciples a sign: his transfiguration (9:2–8).
Jesus withdrew from Galilee to Tyre and Sidon, where a Syrophoenician woman requested healing for her daughter. Jesus replied, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel” (Matt. 15:24). Galileans had long resented the Syrian provincial leadership partiality that allotted governmental funds in ways that made the Jews receive mere “crumbs.” Consequently, when the woman replied, “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table,” Jesus applauded her faith (Matt. 15:27–28). Healing a deaf-mute man in the Decapolis provided another example of Jesus’ ministry in Gentile territory (Mark 7:31–37). Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Christ took place during Jesus’ travel to Caesarea Philippi, a well-known Gentile territory. The city was the ancient center of worship of the Hellenistic god Pan.
Judean ministry. Luke records a geographic turning point in Jesus’ ministry as he resolutely set out for Jerusalem, a direction that eventually led to his death (Luke 9:51). Luke divides the journey to Jerusalem into three phases (9:51–13:21; 13:22–17:10; 17:11–19:27). The opening verses of phase one emphasize a prophetic element of the journey. Jesus viewed his ministry in Jerusalem as his mission, and the demands on discipleship intensified as Jesus approached Jerusalem (Matt. 20:17–19, 26–28; Mark 10:38–39, 43–45; Luke 14:25–35). Luke presents the second phase of the journey toward Jerusalem with a focus on conversations regarding salvation and judgment (Luke 13:22–30). In the third and final phase of the journey, the advent of the kingdom and the final judgment are the main themes (17:20–37; 19:11–27).
Social conflicts with religious leaders increased throughout Jesus’ ministry. These conflicts led to lively challenge-riposte interactions concerning the Pharisaic schools of Shammai and Hillel (Matt. 19:1–12; Mark 10:1–12). Likewise, socioeconomic feathers were ruffled as Jesus welcomed young children, who had little value in society (Matt. 19:13–15; Mark 10:13–16; Luke 18:15–17).
Passion Week, death, and resurrection. Each of the Gospels records Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem with the crowds extending him a royal welcome (Matt. 21:4–9; Mark 11:7–10; Luke 19:35–38; John 12:12–15). Luke describes Jesus’ ministry in Jerusalem as a time during which Jesus taught in the temple as Israel’s Messiah (19:45–21:38).
In Jerusalem, Jesus cleansed the temple of profiteering (Mark 11:15–17). Mark describes the religious leaders as fearing Jesus because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching, and so they “began looking for a way to kill him” (11:18). Dismayed, each segment of Jerusalem’s temple leadership inquired about Jesus’ authority (11:27–33). Jesus replied with cunning questions (12:16, 35–36), stories (12:1–12), denunciation (12:38–44), and a prediction of Jerusalem’s own destruction (13:1–31). One of Jesus’ own disciples, Judas Iscariot, provided the temple leaders the opportunity for Jesus’ arrest (14:10–11).
At the Last Supper, Jesus instituted a new Passover, defining a new covenant grounded in his sufferings (Matt. 26:17–18, 26–29; Mark 14:16–25; Luke 22:14–20). He again warned the disciples of his betrayal and arrest (Matt. 26:21–25, 31; Mark 14:27–31; Luke 22:21–23; John 13:21–30), and later he prayed for the disciples (John 17:1–26) and prayed in agony and submissiveness in the garden of Gethsemane (Matt. 26:36–42; Mark 14:32–42; Luke 22:39–42). His arrest, trial, crucifixion, death, and resurrection followed (Matt. 26:46–28:15; Mark 14:43–16:8; Luke 22:47–24:9; John 18:1–20:18). Jesus finally commissioned his disciples to continue his mission by making disciples of all the nations (Matt. 28:18–20; Acts 1:8) and ascended to heaven with the promise that he will one day return (Luke 24:50–53; Acts 1:9–11).
The Identity of Jesus Christ
Various aspects of Jesus’ identity are stressed in the four NT Gospels, depending on their target audiences. In the Gospels the witnesses to Jesus’ ministry are portrayed as constantly questioning and examining his identity (Matt. 11:2–5; 12:24; 26:63; 27:11; Mark 3:22; 8:11; 11:28; 14:61; Luke 7:18–20; 11:15; 22:67, 70; 23:39; John 7:20, 25–27; 18:37). Only beings of the spiritual realm are certain of his divinity (Mark 1:34; 3:11; Luke 4:41). At Jesus’ baptism, God referred to him as his Son, whom he loved (Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22). Likewise, when Jesus was transfigured in the presence of Peter, James, and John, a voice affirmed, “This is my Son, whom I love” (Matt. 17:5; Mark 9:7). At the moment of his death, the questioning of Jesus’ identity culminated in a confession by a Roman centurion and other guards: “Surely he was the Son of God!” (Matt. 27:54; cf. Mark 15:39).
Miracle worker. In the first-century setting, folk healers and miracle workers were part of the fabric of society. Jesus, however, performed signs and miracles in order to demonstrate the authority of the kingdom of God over various realms: disease, illness, the spiritual world, nature, and even future events. Especially in the Gospel of John, Jesus’ signs and miracles are used to show his authority and thus his identity.
No challenge superseded Jesus’ authority. Among his ample miracles and signs, he changed water into wine (John 2:7–9), calmed a storm in the sea (Matt. 8:23–27; Mark 4:35–39; Luke 8:22–25), exorcized demons (Matt. 9:32–34; Mark 5:1–13; Luke 9:42–43), healed the sick (Mark 1:40–44), raised the dead (Matt. 9:23–25; Mark 5:35–42; Luke 7:1–16; 8:49–54; John 11:17, 38–44), performed miraculous feedings (Matt. 14:17–21; 15:34–38; Mark 6:30–44; 8:5–9; Luke 9:10–17; John 6:8–13), and walked on water (Matt. 14:25–26; Mark 6:48–49; John 6:19).
The Pharisees requested miracles as evidence of his authority (Mark 8:11–12). Jesus refused, claiming that a wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign (Matt. 12:38–39; 16:1–4). The only sign that he would give was the sign of Jonah—his death and resurrection three days later—a personal sacrifice, taking upon himself the judgment of the world (Matt. 12:39–41).
Rabbi/teacher. Jesus’ teaching style was similar to other first-century rabbis or Pharisees (Mark 9:5; 10:51; John 1:38; 3:2). What distinguished him was that he spoke with great personal authority (Matt. 5:22, 28, 32, 39, 44; Mark 1:22). Like other rabbis of his day, Jesus gathered disciples. He called these men to observe his lifestyle and to join him in his ministry of teaching, healing, and exorcism (Matt. 10:1–4; Mark 3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16).
Jesus used a variety of teaching methods. He frequently spoke in parables (Matt. 6:24; 13:24–52; 18:10–14, 23–35; 21:28–22:14; 24:32–36, 45–51; 25:14–30; Mark 4:1–34; 12:1–12; 13:28–34; Luke 8:4–18; 12:41–46; 13:18–21; 14:15–24; 15:1–16:15, 19–31; 18:1–14; 19:11–27; 20:9–19; 21:29–33), used figures of speech (John 10:9), hyperbole (Matt. 19:24; Mark 10:25; Luke 18:25), argumentation (Matt. 26:11), object lessons (Matt. 24:32), frequent repetition (Matt. 13:44–47; Luke 13:18–21), practical examples, and personal guidance.
Major themes in Jesus’ teaching include the kingdom of God, the cost of discipleship, internal righteousness, the end of the age, his identity, his mission, and his approaching death. In his teachings, observance of Torah was given new context and meaning because God’s kingdom had “come near” (Matt. 3:2). Jesus had come to fulfill the law (Matt. 5:17).
Jesus’ teaching ministry often took place amid social conflict. These conflicts were couched in so-called challenge-riposte interactions in which the honor status of those involved was at stake. Jesus used these interactions as teachable moments. When questioned, Jesus gave replies that reveal omniscience or intimate knowledge of God’s will, especially in the Gospel of John. In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus’ answers are both ethical and practical in nature. The Synoptics portray Jesus as challenged repeatedly with accusations of violating customs specified in the Jewish law. Jesus’ answers to such accusations often echoed the essence of 1 Sam. 15:22, “To obey is better than sacrifice,” phrased by Jesus as “I desire mercy, not sacrifice” (Matt. 9:13; 12:7). An overall “better than” ethic was common in Jesus’ public teaching.
The Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5–7) contains a “better than” ethic in which internal obedience is better than mere outward obedience. For example, Jesus said that anger without cause is equal to murder (Matt. 5:21–22), that looking at a woman lustfully amounts to adultery (Matt. 5:28), and that instead of revenging wrongs one must reciprocate with love (Matt. 5:38–48). Jesus valued compassion above traditions and customs, even those contained within the OT law. He desired internal obedience above the letter of the law.
Jesus’ teachings found their authority in the reality of God’s imminent kingdom (Matt. 3:2; 10:7; Mark 1:15; Luke 10:9), necessitating repentance (Matt. 3:2), belief (Mark 1:15), dependence (Matt. 18:3–5; Mark 10:15), and loyalty to a new community—the family of Jesus followers (Mark 3:34; 10:29–30). Jesus urged, “Seek first [God’s] kingdom and his righteousness” (Matt. 6:33). Preaching with such urgency was common among prophetic teachers of the intertestamental period. Jesus, however, had his own grounds for urgency. He held that God deeply valued all humans (Matt. 10:31) and would bring judgment swiftly (Matt. 25:31–46).
Examples of a “greater good” ethic in the Synoptics include the occasions when Jesus ate with sinners (Mark 2:16–17). Jesus used an aphorism in response to accusations about his associations with sinners, saying, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners” (Mark 2:17). He advocated harvesting and healing on the Sabbath (Mark 2:23–28; 3:1–6), and when he was accused of breaking the law, he pointed to an OT exception (1 Sam. 21:1–6) to declare compassion appropriate for the Sabbath. Jesus also applied the “greater good” ethic in the case of divorce, since women suffered the societal stigma of adultery and commonly became outcasts following divorce (Matt. 19:8–9; Mark 10:5–9).
Jesus’ kingdom teachings were simultaneously spiritual, ethical, and eschatological in application. The teachings were aimed at internal transformation (Matt. 5:3–9; 18:3; Mark 10:15) and spurring on love (Matt. 5:44; 7:21). The Spirit of the Lord had called Jesus to bless the hurting ones as they aspired to a godly character. Jesus taught, “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt. 5:48), and “Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful” (Luke 6:36). The “blessed” ones in Jesus’ teachings are poor of spirit, peace driven, mournful, and hungry for righteousness, consumed with emulating godly character.
Some scholars believe that Jesus promoted an “interim ethic” for the kingdom, intended only for a short period prior to the end of time. However, he was explicit regarding the longevity of his teachings: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away” (Matt. 24:35; Luke 16:17).
Messiah. The concept of an anointed one, a messiah, who would restore the glories of David’s kingdom and bring political stability was common in Jewish expectation. Both before and after the Babylonian captivity, many Jews longed for one who would bring peace and protection. Israel’s prophets had spoken of a coming deliverer, one who would restore David’s kingdom and reign in justice and righteousness (2 Sam. 7:11–16; Isa. 9:1–7; 11:1–16; Jer. 23:5–6; 33:15–16; Ezek. 37:25; Dan. 2:44; Mic. 5:2; Zech. 9:9). Isaiah’s description of the servant (Isa. 53) whose suffering healed the nation provided a slightly different angle of expectation in terms of a deliverer.
Jesus’ authority and popularity as a miracle worker called up messianic images in first-century Jewish minds. On several occasions hearers called him “Son of David,” hoping for the Messiah (Matt. 12:23; 21:9). Simon Peter was the first follower who confessed Jesus as the Christ, the “Messiah” (Matt. 16:16; Mark 8:29). In line with Isaiah’s model of the Suffering Servant, Jesus focused not on political ends but rather on spiritual regeneration through his own sacrificial death (Mark 10:45).
Eschatological prophet. Many scholars claim that Jesus is best understood as a Jewish apocalypticist, an eschatological prophet who expected God to intervene in history, destroy the wicked, and bring in the kingdom of God. Central in this understanding are Jesus’ prophecies concerning the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem (Matt. 24:1–2, 15–22; Mark 13:1; Luke 21:5–24; John 2:19; Acts 6:14). In addition, it is noted that Jesus had twelve disciples, representative of the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:2–28; Luke 22:23–30). Certain of Jesus’ parables, those with apocalyptic images of coming judgment, present Jesus as an eschatological prophet (Matt. 24:45–25:30; Luke 12:41–46; 19:11–27).
Suffering Son of God. Jesus’ first recorded teaching in a synagogue in Nazareth was paradigmatic (Luke 4:16–21). He attributed the reading, Isa. 61:1–2, to his personal calling to serve, and in doing so he revealed a trajectory of suffering. The Gospel of Mark likewise aptly portrays Jesus as the suffering Son of God. Jesus’ own teachings incorporated his upcoming suffering (Mark 8:31; 9:12–13, 31; 10:33–34). He summarized his mission by declaring, “The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). His earthly career ended with a trial in Jerusalem consisting of both Roman and Jewish components (Matt. 26:57–68; 27:1–31; Mark 14:53–65; 15:1–20; Luke 22:54–23:25; John 18:19–24; 18:28–19:16). He was insulted, scourged, mocked, and crucified.
Jesus’ suffering culminated in his humiliating death by crucifixion (Matt. 27:33–50; Mark 15:22–37; Luke 23:33–46; John 19:16–30). Crucifixion was a death of unimaginable horror, bringing shame and humiliation to the victim and his family. Anyone hanging on a tree was considered cursed (Deut. 21:23; Gal. 3:13). Thus, especially in a Jewish society, anyone associated with a crucified person bore the shame of following one who was executed as a lowly slave and left as a cursed corpse. The apostle Paul referred to this shame of the cross when he stated, “I am not ashamed of the gospel” (Rom. 1:16).
Exalted Lord. Jesus had prophesied that he would rise again (Matt. 16:21; 17:9, 23; 20:19; 27:63; Mark 8:31; 9:9, 31; 10:34; Luke 9:22; 18:33; 24:7, 46). The testimony of the Synoptics is that the resurrection of Jesus Christ indeed occurred on the third day, Christ having died on Friday (Mark 15:42–45; Luke 23:52–54; John 19:30–33) and risen again on Sunday (Matt. 28:1–7; Mark 16:2–7; Luke 24:1–7; John 20:1–16). The resurrected Jesus was witnessed by the women (Matt. 28:8–9), the eleven disciples (Matt. 28:16–17; Luke 24:36–43), and travelers on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:31–32). According to Paul, he appeared to as many as five hundred others (1 Cor. 15:6). He appeared in bodily form, spoke, showed his scars, and ate (Luke 24:39–43; John 20:27; Acts 1:4). After forty postresurrection days, Jesus ascended into the heavenly realm (Acts 1:9).
As much as Jesus’ death was the epitome of shame, his victory over death was his ultimate exaltation (Phil. 2:5–11). At Pentecost, Peter proclaimed that in the resurrection God fulfilled OT promises (Ps. 16:10) by raising his Son from the grave (Acts 2:30–31). Furthermore, Christ provided freedom from the law through his resurrection (Rom. 5:13–14), God’s approval of his life and work (Phil. 2:8–9), and God’s designation of him as Lord over all the earth, the living and the dead (Acts 17:30–31; Phil. 2:10; Heb. 1:3), and over all his enemies (Eph. 1:20–23).
Jesus’ exaltation commenced the beginning of forgiveness and justification (Luke 24:46–47; Acts 13:30–39; Rom. 4:25) and his intercession for the people of God (Rom. 8:34). His ascension signaled the coming of the Holy Spirit as comforter and teacher (John 14:26; Acts 2:33) and was accompanied by the promise of his return in glory (Luke 24:51), at which time he will render judgment (Matt. 19:28; 24:31; Rev. 20:11–15) and establish his eternal kingdom (1 Cor. 15:24; 2 Tim. 4:1; Rev. 11:15; 22:5).
Jesus’ Purpose and Community
In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is the long-awaited Messiah, who preaches the good news of the kingdom, urging people to repent (4:17–23). Repentance and belief allow one to enter the kingdom. The call into the kingdom is a call into a new covenant, one made in Jesus’ blood (26:28).
In the prologue to the Gospel of Mark, the narrator reveals the identity of Jesus (1:1). Jesus is presented as the one who brings good tidings of salvation (cf. Isa. 40:9; 52:7; 61:1). The centrality of the gospel, the good news (Mark 1:14–15), is evident.
Luke likewise presents the preaching of the good news as a main purpose of Jesus’ ministry (4:43). The content of this good news is the kingdom of God (4:43; 8:1; 16:16). When the disciples of John the Baptist asked Jesus if he was the one who was to come (7:20), Jesus answered, “Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor” (7:22). The kingdom of God, as presented in Luke, brings freedom for the prisoners, recovery of sight for the blind, and release for the oppressed (4:18). Jesus’ healings and exorcisms announce the coming kingdom of God already present in the ministry of Jesus (4:40–44; 6:18–20; 8:1–2; 9:2; 10:8–9).
In the Gospel of John, Jesus testifies to the good news by way of signs throughout his ministry. These signs point to Jesus’ glory, his identity, and the significance of his ministry. Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, who offers eternal and abundant life. This abundant life is lived out in community.
In the Gospel of John, the disciples of Jesus represent the community of God (17:21). The disciples did not belong to the world, but they continued to live in the world (17:14–16). Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18).
Jesus’ ministry continued in the community of Jesus’ followers, God’s family—the church. Entrance into the community was obtained by adopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and through the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–62; John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9).
The Quests for the Historical Jesus
The quest for the historical Jesus, or seeking who Jesus was from a historical perspective, is a modern phenomenon deemed necessary by scholars who claim that the NT Gospels were written long after Jesus’ death and were heavily influenced by the post-Easter understanding of the church.
The beginning of this quest is often dated to 1770, when the lecture notes of Hermann Samuel Reimarus were published posthumously. Reimarus had launched an inquiry into the identity of Jesus that rejected as inauthentic all supernatural elements in the Gospels. He concluded that the disciples invented Jesus’ miracles, prophecies, ritualistic religion, and resurrection. Reimarus’s conclusions were not widely accepted, but they set off a flurry of rationalistic research into the historical Jesus that continued throughout the nineteenth century. This became known as the “first quest” for the historical Jesus.
In 1906 German theologian Albert Schweit-zer published The Quest of the Historical Jesus (German title: Von Reimarus zu Wrede: Eine Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung), a scathing indictment of the first quest. Schweitzer’s work showed that nineteenth-century researchers re-created Jesus in their own image, transforming the historical Jesus into a modern philanthropist preaching an inoffensive message of love and brotherhood. Schweitzer’s conclusions marked the beginning of the end for this first quest. Schweitzer himself concluded that the historical Jesus was an eschatological prophet whose purposes failed during his last days in Jerusalem.
With the demise of the first quest, some NT scholars, such as Rudolf Bultmann, rejected any claim to being able to discover the historical Jesus. This trend continued until 1953, when some of Bultmann’s former students launched what has come to be known as the “new quest” for the historical Jesus (1953–c. 1970). This quest created new interest in the historical Jesus but was still dominated by the view that the portrait of Jesus in the Gospels is largely a creation of the church in a post-Easter setting.
As the rebuilding years of the post–World War II era waned and scholars started to reap academic fruit from major archaeological finds such as the DSS, research on the historical Jesus moved on to what has been called the “third quest.” This quest seeks especially to research and understand Jesus in his social and cultural setting.
When God completed his work at creation, all that he made he pronounced “very good” (Gen. 1:31). The world was functioning harmoniously, and most important, the humans God had created in his own image lived in a sinless relationship with him. In one sense this universe before the fall represents its “natural” state. Evil and suffering enter the creation as fundamentally alien elements. However, through Adam and Eve’s disobedience (Gen. 3) what was unnatural has become natural. “Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned” (Rom. 5:12). For this reason, God sent his Son to die on a cross and rise again, to redeem his people from their unnatural (against God’s revealed will [cf. Rom. 1:20–27]) yet natural (inborn and pervasive [cf. Rom. 6:19]) state of sinfulness.
In Luke 3:25 the KJV rendering of the Greek name for Nahum (Naoum), an ancestor of Jesus.
Most commonly, the long central hall of a cross-shaped church where the congregation sits. Some Bible versions use the term to refer to the central hall of the Jerusalem temple between the vestibule and the most holy place (1 Kings 6:3, 5, 17, 33; 7:21; Ezek. 41:1–2 RSV, NASB, NRSV, NAB). The NIV has “main hall” in most of these passages. The KJV uses the word “naves” in 1 Kings 7:33 in an archaic sense, referring to the “rims” (NIV) of a wheel.
One particular Hebrew word for “navel,” shor, occurs three times in the OT. In Song 7:2 the male character lists his lover’s navel among the physical attributes that he praises. In Prov. 3:8 shor (NIV: “body”) is probably used figuratively to refer to the body receiving nourishment. In Ezek. 16:4 shor is used to refer to the umbilical cord (NRSV: “navel cord”).
Another Hebrew word, tabbur, occurring in Ezek. 38:12 (also Judg. 9:37) and translated “center” in the NIV, might best be translated as “navel,” thus connecting to an ancient Near Eastern tradition that views the mountain where a deity dwells as the “navel” or nexus between heaven and earth. In this verse, then, Mount Zion in Jerusalem, where God dwelt among his people, would be referred to as the “navel of the earth.”
Old Testament
Phoenicians and Philistines. As a people whose ancestral territory lay in the landlocked and timber-poor highlands of Ephraim and Judah, the Israelites of biblical times never achieved prominence in seafaring or shipbuilding. Instead, they relied for their maritime enterprises on alliances with their coastal neighbors, particularly the Phoenician states to the north of Israel, who excelled in seafaring and had access to the abundant timber forests of Lebanon. The Phoenicians (the Punics of classical antiquity) were famous in antiquity for their seafaring. In biblical times, they traded heavily between Syria-Palestine and Egypt and also sailed throughout the Mediterranean, establishing colonies as far away as Tunisia (Carthage) and Spain (Cadiz).
Another seagoing people prominent in the OT were the Philistines, whose base of power was to the west of Judah, along the Mediterranean coast. The Bible associates the Philistines with the five cities of Ashdod, Ashkelon, Ekron, Gath, and Gaza. The Philistines were among the Sea Peoples, who came to the Levant from the Aegean beginning in the twelfth century BC (Amos 9:7; Jer. 47:4).
The perennial enmity between the Philistines and the Israelites precluded joint maritime ventures of the sort shared by Israel and the Phoenicians, and the Bible does not describe Philistine maritime activities in any depth. Nevertheless, the seagoing nature of the Philistines is reflected by the fact that their settlements remained confined to the coastal region. They never made a systematic attempt to take over the traditionally Israelite and Judahite highlands. When they did venture into the Judean mountains, it was to assert a military and political presence among the agrarian Israelites and Judahites rather than to establish permanent settlements and Philistine population centers. Twelfth-century BC reliefs at Medinet Habu (in the mortuary temple of Ramesses III) depict a naval battle between the Sea Peoples and the Egyptians. The reliefs include pictures of Philistine ships and sailors.
Israelite seafaring. One of the rare references to Israelite seafaring describes the Danites and the Asherites in connection with ships and harbors (Judg. 5:17; see also Ezek. 27:19). Traditional Danite territory overlapped with the area of Philistine settlement. Asherite territory overlapped substantially with Phoenician territory. It is possible that Judg. 5:17 refers to the fact that the Danites and the Asherites worked in the port cities serving Philistine and Phoenician shipping. In another passage, Zebulun is associated with ports (Gen. 49:13). It is noteworthy that the Israelite coast between Jaffa and Dor (roughly between Philistia and Phoenicia) does not have an abundance of natural harbors. Later, Herod the Great would build the artificial harbor at Caesarea in the first century BC. The great expense of such a project—including the construction of over 2,500 feet of breakwaters made of underwater concrete, mostly imported from Italy—suggests the extent of the need for secure harbors in this region.
Solomon’s fleet. The zenith of Israelite seafaring occurred during the reign of Solomon. Solomon built a fleet of ships at “Ezion Geber, which is near Elath in Edom, on the shore of the Red Sea” (1 Kings 9:26). The purpose of these ships was to bring back gold from Ophir (1 Kings 9:28), possibly a location in the Arabian Peninsula, to which a port on the Red Sea would have offered ready access. The story confirms the aforementioned dependence on the Phoenicians in the area of seafaring: although the ships belonged to Solomon, “Hiram [the Phoenician king of Tyre] sent his men—sailors who knew the sea—to serve in the fleet with Solomon’s men” (1 Kings 9:27). The timber for the ships would also have been imported by Israel from Phoenicia (see 1 Kings 9:11). Even at the height of its power, Israel lacked the human resources to embark on sea voyages independently of the Phoenicians.
The success of Solomon’s project, of course, depended not only on warm relations with the Phoenicians but also on territorial control of the historically Edomite lands between Judah and the Red Sea. This favorable combination of conditions would come and go throughout the biblical period, and with it, Israel’s modest presence on the seas. From the Phoenician point of view, cooperation with Israel was an essential component of gaining access to a Red Sea port, and with it to the products of Arabia, the Horn of Africa, and India. The Phoenicians, as expansive as their travel was in the Mediterranean, could never independently control the long overland route from Phoenicia to the Red Sea, since it ran through the territory of Israel and Edom. Their best hope was a friendly and powerful Israelite ally. This explains the cordial relationship and why Hiram sent not only his sailors to serve Solomon but also craftsmen and supplies for the construction of the temple (1 Kings 5:10–12). Solomon and Hiram jointly operated “a fleet of trading ships” that would return to port every three years bringing “gold, silver, and ivory, and apes and baboons” (1 Kings 10:22).
Jehoshaphat. In the mid-ninth century BC, King Jehoshaphat of Judah attempted to repeat Solomon’s feat of launching a fleet from Ezion Geber (1 Kings 22:48–49; 2 Chron. 20:35–37). According to both accounts, the ships were wrecked before they could set sail. On several other points, however, the two versions of the story disagree in ways that bear on questions of the political and economic conditions of Israelite seafaring.
By this time, Israel and Judah had split into separate kingdoms, with the northern kingdom of Israel being geographically and politically closer to the Phoenicians. The powerful King Ahab of Israel, Jehoshaphat’s contemporary through much of his reign, married Jezebel, the daughter of the Sidonian (Phoenician) king Ethbaal (1 Kings 16:31). According to 1 Kings, King Ahaziah of Israel (Ahab’s son) proposed to cooperate with Jehoshaphat by sending his own men on the voyage, much as Hiram had assisted Solomon in the previous century. Jehoshaphat rejected the suggestion, possibly indicating a bid for Judean autonomy in an era of northern dominance. According to 2 Chronicles, however, Jehoshaphat did cooperate willingly with Ahaziah, and this was the reason that the ships foundered in port: God punished the righteous Jehoshaphat for too close a relationship with his wicked northern counterpart. In 1 Kings 22:47 it is mentioned that at the time of Jehoshaphat’s venture there was no king in Edom. As noted, control of the overland route between Judah and the Red Sea was necessary for the success of any voyage originating from Ezion Geber.
However the contradiction between 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles regarding the involvement of Ahaziah is resolved, both versions of the story highlight the fact that the port at Ezion Geber commanded the interest of the Judeans, the Israelites, and the Phoenicians, and its successful operation probably depended on the cooperation of all three.
Ships of Tarshish. Several biblical texts, including the stories of Solomon and Jehoshaphat, mention “ships of Tarshish” (1 Kings 10:22 NIV mg.). In a number of contexts, such ships are associated with the transportation of metals and metal ores, including iron, lead, tin, gold, and silver (1 Kings 10:22; Ezek. 27:12; Jer. 10:9). The exact derivation of the term “ships of Tarshish” is uncertain, though it is clear from the descriptions of their cargoes that such ships could travel over long distances. As Ezekiel observes, “The ships of Tarshish serve as carriers for your wares. You are filled with heavy cargo as you sail the sea. Your oarsmen take you out to the high seas” (Ezek. 27:25–26).
In the Table of Nations, Tarshish is listed as a descendant of Javan (Gen. 10:4), along with a number of other seafaring peoples of the eastern Mediterranean (“Javan” indicates the peoples of the Aegean and is linguistically equivalent to “Ionia” [see also Ezek. 27:12–22]). Some have suggested, then, that the ships of Tarshish should be associated with Tarsus in southeastern Turkey, an area containing silver mines (also the birthplace of Paul [Acts 9:11]). Others have suggested the Phoenician colony of Tartessus in Spain, another metal-producing area. This location figures in the interpretation of the identification of the destination of Jonah as Tarshish (Jon. 1:3): presumably, if he were avoiding Nineveh and departing from Joppa, he would head toward Spain, in the exact opposite direction, rather than toward Tarsus in Cilicia.
In addition to these two geographical options, some have attempted to explain the expression “ships of Tarshish” as deriving from the Akkadian term for smelting or refining: perhaps the many references to cargoes of metals indicate that the ships were used to transport metal ore to refining centers. Finally, one scholar has proposed that the term is related to the Greek word tarsos, meaning “oar.”
Descriptions of ships and seafaring. Ezekiel, in his lament concerning the Phoenician city of Tyre (Ezek. 27), relates a number of details related to Phoenician seafaring. The picture largely confirms the descriptions of how Solomon built and manned his fleet with the assistance of his Tyrian ally. Timber for the construction of the ship came from Lebanon and Cyprus, among other places (vv. 5–6). Sails were made from Egyptian linen (v. 7), and as noted above, the oarsmen and sailors were from the Phoenician city-states (vv. 8–9). Ezekiel goes on to list a large number of ports of call as well as a dazzling variety of cargoes (vv. 12–24). Notably, Ezekiel has the Judahites and the Israelites offering the products of their agrarian economy—“wheat from Minnith and confections, honey, olive oil and balm” (v. 17)—thus filling out the picture of what the Israelites gave in exchange for the precious metals and luxury items imported by their country from elsewhere.
In 1999 archaeologists explored two eighth-century BC Phoenician ships that had sunk thirty miles west of Ashkelon. The ships, each measuring about fifty feet in length, contained large cargoes of wine and were headed either for Egypt or for the Phoenician colonies in the western Mediterranean.
Ships and sailing figure prominently in the story of Jonah, who boarded a ship bound for Tarshish (see discussion above) at Joppa on the Mediterranean coast. In the story we see a number of features of ancient sea travel. Jonah paid a fare for his voyage (Jon. 1:3). Not only the biblical author (see 1:4), but also the presumably non-Israelite sailors, believed that the great storm was the doing of a god, and that it could be calmed by appealing to that god (1:6)—although cargo was thrown overboard for good measure. When Paul was caught in a storm in the first century AD, the same strategies were still in use (Acts 27:38). The religious habits of ancient sailors, particularly their reverence for the gods who controlled the stormy seas and thus held their lives in the balance, are illuminated by the discovery of stone anchors in several temples (presumably left by sailors as offerings), including at the port cities of Ugarit, Kition, and Byblos.
Psalm 107:23–32 speaks of God’s care of sailors from an Israelite perspective. In the psalm, those who “went out on the sea in ships,” the “merchants on the mighty waters” (i.e., the deep, open sea), witness firsthand the works of the God of Israel, which include both the raising and the quieting of the storm. This passage vividly expresses the terror of being caught in a storm and the great relief and gratitude felt by sailors who reached safe haven.
Noah’s Ark
According to the biblical account, Noah’s ark was 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high (300 cubits by 50 cubits by 30 cubits [Gen. 6:15]). It had three decks, a roof, and a window. By comparison, the ship of Uta-napishti in the Epic of Gilgamesh is described as having six decks (and thus seven stories), edges of 180 feet (ten dozen cubits) in each dimension, and occupying the space of an acre (a rough approximation of the dimensions given). Both ships are described as providing space for the builder’s family and every living creature. In the Atrahasis Epic, the boat is roofed, but its dimensions are not given.
Because of the character of Gen. 6–8, it is inappropriate to draw conclusions from the story regarding shipbuilding in historical antiquity. According to the specifications given in the biblical text, Noah’s ark would have been the largest wooden ship in history, equaled only by the United States schooner Wyoming, completed in 1909. While the overall length of the Wyoming was also 450 feet, nearly 100 feet of length was accounted for in the fore and aft booms, so that the hull length was only 350 feet. Even with early twentieth-century shipbuilding technology, its extravagant length rendered the Wyoming unseaworthy, and the ship foundered in 1924. The largest documented wooden ships of antiquity include the Greek Syracusia (third century BC; 180 feet), described by Athenaeus; the Roman Isis (second century AD; 180 feet), described by Lucian; Caligula’s “Giant Ship” (first century AD; 341 feet), recovered in modern times and possibly corresponding to a ship described by Pliny the Elder; and Ptolemy IV’s Tessarakonteres (third century BC), reported by Plutarch to have been about 425 feet long. This last ship was not designed for cruising in open water.
New Testament
Fishing in the Sea of Galilee. Several of Jesus’ disciples worked as fishermen on the Sea of Galilee, and the Gospels document their use of small boats for fishing and traveling across the sea. Fishing was done with nets thrown both from boats and from the shore (Mark 1:16, 19). The boats used by fishermen on the Sea of Galilee may have been small enough to pull up onto the beach (Luke 5:2), or to be nearly capsized by a large catch of fish (Luke 5:7) or by a violent storm (Mark 4:37). They were large enough to transport several men and even to sleep in (Mark 4:38). Such boats could be rowed or sailed; in Mark 6:48 the disciples had to resort to rowing because of an unfavorable headwind. On one occasion, Jesus stood in a boat to preach to a crowd gathered on the shore (Mark 4:1). The Sea of Galilee is about eight miles wide and thirteen miles long. On several occasions, Jesus traveled by boat across the sea to avoid having to walk long distances around its circumference (e.g., Matt. 9:1; 14:22; 15:39).
In 1986 archaeologists recovered a fishing boat dating to the mid-first century AD on the shore of the Sea of Galilee. The boat had been scuttled near the shore and was preserved under mud. The “Jesus Boat,” as it was dubbed, measures twenty-seven feet in length and has a beam seven and a half feet long. Numerous species of wood were used in its construction and repairs throughout its useful life. While there is no evidence to link the boat to Jesus or his disciples, radiometric dating places it in the correct period, and it provides a likely model of the type of boat portrayed in the Gospels.
A second source of information regarding ships and sailing in the NT is the account in Acts of Paul’s many sea voyages. As in the case of Jehoshaphat, the Tyrians, Jonah, and Jesus’ disciples, Paul learned firsthand the perils of seafaring in small wooden boats: among his many traumas, along with beatings and stonings, he recalled, “Three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea” (2 Cor. 11:25).
Paul’s journeys. A survey of Paul’s sea travels on his four journeys gives some idea of the routes that could be taken by a paying traveler in the eastern Mediterranean and Aegean.
1. Paul’s first missionary journey included voyages from Seleucia in Syria to the port of Salamis in Cyprus (Acts 13:4) and from Cyprus (Paphos) to Perga on the southern coast of Asia Minor (13:13). After journeying through the interior, Paul returned to Attalia, where he embarked for the return trip to Syria, presumably passing again through the port at Salamis (14:26).
2. The second missionary journey began not with a sea voyage but rather with a trek through the interior of Syria and Cilicia, illustrating that although sea travel was by far a more rapid means of travel, the overland routes were by no means impossible (Acts 15:39). Paul would repeat this land route during his third journey (19:1). Sea travel was fast, but when one had plenty of friends along the alternative land route, a sea journey was considerably less enjoyable. It is during the second journey that we have the first recorded accounts of Paul sailing in the Aegean. From Troas in Asia Minor, he sailed the short distance to Macedonia (16:11), putting in midway at the island of Samothrace. Apparently, Paul traveled by sea down the coast from Berea to Athens (17:14). At the conclusion of his second journey, Paul sailed from Corinth to Caesarea, with a stop at Ephesus (18:18–22). Not counting any intervening ports of call not mentioned in the text, this would be the longest single leg of sea travel so far mentioned.
3. The third missionary journey once more began with a long overland trip from Syria through Asia Minor; by this time, Paul had many associates along the way to visit. Again, he sailed in the Aegean, from Ephesus to Macedonia (Acts 20:1) and back (20:6). At one point, Paul opted to travel overland, from Troas to Assos, while his companions sailed down the coast (20:13). Meeting up with them, he sailed on, hugging the coast of Asia Minor, then sailing south of Cyprus along an open-water route to Tyre. From Tyre, the ship again hugged the Palestinian coast, stopping in several ports before Paul disembarked at Caesarea (21:7). Paul’s journeys illustrate the variety of itineraries taken by ships. They were capable of sailing in deep water, but they would also hug the coast when there were reasons to make frequent stops.
4. Paul’s fourth journey, which he made in custody on his way to a trial before the emperor at Rome, was to be the most dangerous. From the account in Acts we can glean a number of details of life at sea in the first century AD. The ship bound for Italy was large, and it carried 276 passengers and crew (Acts 27:6, 37), including soldiers and prisoners, at least one companion of a prisoner (Paul’s friend Aristarchus [27:2]), a ship’s pilot, and the ship’s owner (27:11). Sailors used celestial navigation (27:20) and took soundings in shallow water (27:28). We see also that the ship’s course could be determined by the direction of the prevailing winds: twice during the journey Paul’s ship was forced to sail to the lee of large islands (Cyprus and Crete)—a longer journey, but the only option for a ship that was not rigged to sail close-hauled.
When extended periods of unfavorable weather were forecast, one option was simply to put in at a port until conditions improved, preferably in a harbor that was in the lee of an island (Acts 27:12). We learn something of the measures that were taken in heavy weather, many of which are still used in modern times: ropes were tied around the hull of the ship to prevent it from breaking up in rough seas (27:17), the lifeboat was brought onto the deck and made fast (27:17), sea anchors were deployed to keep the bow of the ship oriented into the oncoming waves (27:7), the rudder was lashed amidships (27:40), valuable cargo and gear were jettisoned (27:19, 38), and, as in the days of Jonah, sailors and passengers prayed for divine deliverance (27:29; see also the protective emblems in 28:11).
When all other means had been exhausted, a ship could be run aground on a sandy beach (Acts 27:39), a measure that would have risked damage to the boat but saved lives. In the case of Paul’s ship, the decision to run aground ultimately resulted in the destruction of the ship (27:41).
Metaphors and illustrations. Several NT authors draw illustrations from the nautical world. James likens the harmful power of evil speech to the rudder of a ship: although it is a small device, by it the pilot can control a great ship (James 3:4–5). Elsewhere, he compares the doubting of the unwise person to being lost at sea in a storm (James 1:6; cf. Eph. 4:14). In 1 Tim. 1:19 the loss of faith and good conscience is likened to a shipwreck. Hebrews 6:19 describes the assurance of God’s faithfulness as an anchor for the soul.
In partnership with Hiram king of Tyre, Solomon operated a fleet (KJV: “navy”) of trading ships (1 Kings 9:27; 10:22; 2 Chron. 9:21). Later, Jehoshaphat constructed a similar fleet, but as a result of his unholy alliance with Amaziah, the ships were wrecked before they could set sail (1 Kings 22:48; 2 Chron. 20:35–37).
In the first century, Nazareth was a small village in the extreme southerly part of lower Galilee, midway between the Sea of Galilee and the Mediterranean Sea. It was near Gath Hepher, the birthplace of Jonah the prophet to the Gentiles (2 Kings 14:25), and Sepphoris, one of the three largest cities in the region. Not far was the Via Maris, the great highway joining Mesopotamia to Egypt and ultimately the trading network that linked India, China, central Asia, the Near East, and the Mediterranean. The village was perched 1,150 feet above sea level, overlooking the Jezreel Valley, with several terraces for agriculture cut into the mountain. A Nazarene could look south across the grand Plain of Esdraelon, west to Mount Carmel on the Mediterranean coast, east to nearby Mount Tabor, and north to snowcapped Mount Hermon. The community, whose population may have averaged around five hundred, subsisted from agriculture. Capital resources included almonds, pomegranates, dates, oil, and wine. (Excavations have located vaulted cells for wine and oil storage, as well as wine presses and storage jar vessels.) Nazareth appears to have been uninhabited from the eighth to the second centuries BC, until it was resettled during the reign of John Hyrcanus (134–104 BC), probably by a Davidic clan of army veterans. The claim that Jesus’ adoptive father, Joseph, was a descendant of David and a resident of Nazareth is therefore plausible (Matt. 1:20; Luke 2:4–5). Today, Nazareth is the largest Arab city in Israel.
Although Jesus’ ministry was unsuccessful in Nazareth, he and his followers were called “Nazarenes” (Mark 1:24; 10:47; John 18:5, 7; Acts 2:22; 3:6; 24:5). Descendants of Jesus’ family continued to live in the area for centuries. The epithet “Nazarene” probably was intended as a slur. Nathanael is unimpressed by Jesus’ origin in Nazareth (John 1:46). The village is not mentioned in the OT. Some even doubted its existence, until 1962, when the place name “Nazareth” was discovered on a synagogue inscription in Caesarea Maritima.
In the first century, Nazareth was a small village in the extreme southerly part of lower Galilee, midway between the Sea of Galilee and the Mediterranean Sea. It was near Gath Hepher, the birthplace of Jonah the prophet to the Gentiles (2 Kings 14:25), and Sepphoris, one of the three largest cities in the region. Not far was the Via Maris, the great highway joining Mesopotamia to Egypt and ultimately the trading network that linked India, China, central Asia, the Near East, and the Mediterranean. The village was perched 1,150 feet above sea level, overlooking the Jezreel Valley, with several terraces for agriculture cut into the mountain. A Nazarene could look south across the grand Plain of Esdraelon, west to Mount Carmel on the Mediterranean coast, east to nearby Mount Tabor, and north to snowcapped Mount Hermon. The community, whose population may have averaged around five hundred, subsisted from agriculture. Capital resources included almonds, pomegranates, dates, oil, and wine. (Excavations have located vaulted cells for wine and oil storage, as well as wine presses and storage jar vessels.) Nazareth appears to have been uninhabited from the eighth to the second centuries BC, until it was resettled during the reign of John Hyrcanus (134–104 BC), probably by a Davidic clan of army veterans. The claim that Jesus’ adoptive father, Joseph, was a descendant of David and a resident of Nazareth is therefore plausible (Matt. 1:20; Luke 2:4–5). Today, Nazareth is the largest Arab city in Israel.
Although Jesus’ ministry was unsuccessful in Nazareth, he and his followers were called “Nazarenes” (Mark 1:24; 10:47; John 18:5, 7; Acts 2:22; 3:6; 24:5). Descendants of Jesus’ family continued to live in the area for centuries. The epithet “Nazarene” probably was intended as a slur. Nathanael is unimpressed by Jesus’ origin in Nazareth (John 1:46). The village is not mentioned in the OT. Some even doubted its existence, until 1962, when the place name “Nazareth” was discovered on a synagogue inscription in Caesarea Maritima.
Both men and women could take the Nazirite vow (Num. 6:1–21), consecrating themselves to God and abstaining from all grapevine products, avoiding contact with corpses, and allowing their hair to grow long. The first two stipulations mandate separation from conditions reflective of decay and corruption, clearly an affront to God’s holiness (cf. Amos 2:11–12). Long hair was the sign of the vow, symbolic of the power of God (Judg. 16:17).
Inadvertently touching a corpse interrupted the vow. Rededication necessitated shaving the head and sacrificing sin and burnt offerings, along with a guilt offering for having defiled something holy (Lev. 5:14–19). The vow could last one’s entire life, as was intended for Samson (Judg. 13:7) and Samuel (1 Sam. 1:11), or it could simply be for a period of time (Acts 18:18; 21:24). In the latter case, the vow was terminated with the presentation of sin, burnt, and fellowship offerings and shaving and burning the hair at the tabernacle.
An individual could take the vow by personal volition, or it could be imposed by others. Most of the biblical examples fall into the latter category. The angel of the Lord declared that Samson would be a Nazirite for his entire life, although Samson despised the sanctity of the vow in just about every way (Judg. 13–16). Hannah dedicated Samuel for his life (1 Sam. 1:11). John the Baptist was also apparently given over to these conditions by the word of the angel Gabriel (Luke 1:15).
The harbor town for the larger city of Philippi, on the Aegean coast. Paul, after receiving a vision, set out with his companions to Macedonia. During the journey, they passed through Neapolis (Acts 16:11) before traveling approximately ten miles on to Philippi. Their arrival in Neapolis marks Paul’s first entry into Europe.
(1) A leader of the tribe of Simeon during the reign of Hezekiah who helped drive the remaining Amalekites from Mount Seir (1 Chron. 4:42). (2) One of the four sons of She-ma-i-ah, a descendant of David (1 Chron. 3:22).
One of the leaders who sealed the covenant with God following Ezra’s public reading of the law (Neh. 10:19).
(1) The name of the firstborn son of Ishmael (Gen. 25:13; 28:9; 36:3; 1 Chron. 1:29) and an Arabic tribe mentioned in cuneiform sources. (2) The place from where rams will be gathered, mentioned in the context of future blessing for Jerusalem (Isa. 60:7).
(1) The name of the firstborn son of Ishmael (Gen. 25:13; 28:9; 36:3; 1 Chron. 1:29) and an Arabic tribe mentioned in cuneiform sources. (2) The place from where rams will be gathered, mentioned in the context of future blessing for Jerusalem (Isa. 60:7).
A town at the western end of the hill country of Ephraim that members of the tribe of Benjamin repopulated after the Babylonian exile (Neh. 11:34). The site is apparently identified with Beit Nabala (Horvat Nevallat), located approximately twenty-two miles northwest of Jerusalem and four miles northeast of Lod, near the edge of the coastal plain.
(1) Mount Nebo is located in Abarim, a mountain range in northwest Moab separating the Transjordan Plain from the Jordan Valley. Nebo is usually identified with a mountain of the same modern name that is five miles northwest of Madaba and is well over four thousand feet in elevation. This was the mountain that God commanded Moses to ascend to get a glimpse of the promised land before he died (Deut. 32:48–52; 34:1). On a clear day, it offers a spectacular view. In the period right after the entry into the land, the area was controlled by the Reubenites (Num. 32:3, 38). Later, it is mentioned as a prominent location in the land of Moab (Jer. 48:1, 22). (See also Abarim.) (2) The god Nebo was considered the son of the Babylonian chief god, Marduk, and was himself the god of wisdom and writing. He was thus the patron god of scribes (Isa. 46:1). (3) Nebo is listed as an ancestor of seven men who had married foreign women during the postexilic period (Ezra 10:43). (4) The hometown of fifty-two men returned from the Babylonian exile (Ezra 2:29).
A Babylonian official identified in Jer. 39:3. The division and significance of the names in the list is disputed. Some versions treat “Nebo” (Heb. nebu) as the second half of Samgar’s name, and read this part of the list as “Nergal-sharezer, Samgar-nebo, Sarsechim the Rab-saris” (NRSV, HCSB; similarly, NASB). The NIV and others (see NLT, REB, NET) instead read the Hebrew as two names, with a place name and a title: “Nergal-Sharezer of Samgar, Nebo-Sarsekim a chief officer.”
The king of Babylon from 605 to 562 BC. Information about his life and reign comes from the Bible as well as ancient Babylonian sources. Nebuchadnezzar had many military and political accomplishments. The following material focuses mainly on those that illumine the biblical text.
Nebuchadnezzar’s father, Nabopolassar, was a Chaldean (Aramaic-speaking) tribal chief from the extreme south of Babylon (near what is today the Persian Gulf). In 626 BC he rebelled against Assyria, which for many years had subjugated Babylon to vassal status. In 612 BC the Babylonians, along with the Medes, defeated the Assyrian capital, Nineveh. Remnants of the Assyrian army fled to the region around Harran in northern Syria under the leadership of Ashur-uballit. In 609 BC Pharaoh Necho of Egypt attempted to bolster the Assyrian army, but the Babylonians soundly defeated them at the battle of Carchemish. At this point, Babylon inherited what was the Assyrian Empire, which included Syria and the northern kingdom of Israel. In 605 BC Nabopolassar died of natural causes, and his son Nebuchadnezzar succeeded him as king.
In the same year, according to Dan. 1:1–3, Nebuchadnezzar “besieged” Jerusalem. The Hebrew verb (tsur) could indicate a military siege or simply a diplomatic coercion. In any case, the pro-Egyptian Judean king, Jehoiakim, had no recourse but to submit, turning over to the Babylonian king the temple vessels and also political hostages from the royal family, including Daniel and his three friends.
In 597 BC Jehoiakim revolted against Neb-u-chad-nezzar. By the time the Babylonian army mobilized and made the long march to Jerusalem, Jehoiakim had been replaced by his son Jehoiachin. The city of Jerusalem was then taken. Jehoiachin, along with many leaders, including the priest Ezekiel, were taken into exile in Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar then placed on the throne Jehoiachin’s uncle, who took the name “Zedekiah.”
Yet, in 586 BC even Zedekiah presumed to rebel against Nebuchadnezzar. This time Nebuchadnezzar defeated Jerusalem, and he killed Zedekiah’s sons, gouged out his eyes, and carted him off to Babylon. He also destroyed much of the city, including the palace, walls, and temple. The book of Lamentations records the horrified reaction of the faithful to the destruction of the city. He exiled many of the leading citizens, but he left most of the people in the land under the leadership of Gedaliah, a Judean-born governor. Jeremiah records the account of later atrocities of an insurgent, Ishmael (Jer. 40:7–41:15). Ishmael’s assassination of Gedaliah and murder of the Babylonian soldiers in Jerusalem led to yet another Babylonian incursion into Judah in 582 BC.
Nebuchadnezzar died in 562 BC. He was succeeded by his son Amel-Marduk (known in the Bible as Awel-Marduk [2 Kings 25:27]).
The most intimate portrait of Nebuchadnezzar comes from Dan. 1–4. After taking Daniel and the three friends into captivity, he trained them for royal service. Daniel became a trusted adviser to the king. In the end, it was Daniel who taught the king rather than the other way around. It is doubtful that Nebuchadnezzar ever worshiped the true God exclusively, but he came to recognize Yahweh’s great power and wisdom.
A vision of a multimetaled statue seen by Nebuchadnezzar in a dream, the significance of which is interpreted by Daniel after the failure of the Babylonian wise men to do so (Dan. 2). The statue’s head was made of gold, the chest and arms of silver, the belly and thighs of bronze, the legs of iron, and the feet a mixture of iron and baked clay (see 2:31–45). As the vision continues, a rock is cut out of the earth and then crushes the weak feet, causing the entire statue to crumble. Daniel interprets this dream as anticipating the succession of human kingdoms and the rock that destroys them as representing the kingdom of God, but he does not identify any of the kingdoms beyond the first, which he identifies as Nebuchadnezzar’s (Babylon).
Some interpreters identify the following kingdoms as Media, Persia, and Greece, while others believe that they represent a combined Medo-Persian, Greek, and finally Roman kingdom. Another interpretation suggests that it is inappropriate to identify the parts of the statue with specific kingdoms, believing that the vision simply states that oppressive kingdoms will follow one another until the end, when God will intervene and bring evil human kingdoms to an end. In other words, the number “four” is not to be taken literally, but rather indicates a succession of kingdoms of undetermined number. This vision has similarities with the vision of four beasts arising out of a chaotic sea described in Dan. 7. In Dan. 3 Nebuchadnezzar sets up a mammoth golden image on the Plain of Dura. It is unclear whether this image is of a god (Marduk?) or of Nebuchadnezzar himself. If the latter, it may have been motivated by the vision in Dan. 2, since Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylon was represented by a head of gold.
The king of Babylon from 605 to 562 BC. Information about his life and reign comes from the Bible as well as ancient Babylonian sources. Nebuchadnezzar had many military and political accomplishments. The following material focuses mainly on those that illumine the biblical text.
Nebuchadnezzar’s father, Nabopolassar, was a Chaldean (Aramaic-speaking) tribal chief from the extreme south of Babylon (near what is today the Persian Gulf). In 626 BC he rebelled against Assyria, which for many years had subjugated Babylon to vassal status. In 612 BC the Babylonians, along with the Medes, defeated the Assyrian capital, Nineveh. Remnants of the Assyrian army fled to the region around Harran in northern Syria under the leadership of Ashur-uballit. In 609 BC Pharaoh Necho of Egypt attempted to bolster the Assyrian army, but the Babylonians soundly defeated them at the battle of Carchemish. At this point, Babylon inherited what was the Assyrian Empire, which included Syria and the northern kingdom of Israel. In 605 BC Nabopolassar died of natural causes, and his son Nebuchadnezzar succeeded him as king.
In the same year, according to Dan. 1:1–3, Nebuchadnezzar “besieged” Jerusalem. The Hebrew verb (tsur) could indicate a military siege or simply a diplomatic coercion. In any case, the pro-Egyptian Judean king, Jehoiakim, had no recourse but to submit, turning over to the Babylonian king the temple vessels and also political hostages from the royal family, including Daniel and his three friends.
In 597 BC Jehoiakim revolted against Neb-u-chad-nezzar. By the time the Babylonian army mobilized and made the long march to Jerusalem, Jehoiakim had been replaced by his son Jehoiachin. The city of Jerusalem was then taken. Jehoiachin, along with many leaders, including the priest Ezekiel, were taken into exile in Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar then placed on the throne Jehoiachin’s uncle, who took the name “Zedekiah.”
Yet, in 586 BC even Zedekiah presumed to rebel against Nebuchadnezzar. This time Nebuchadnezzar defeated Jerusalem, and he killed Zedekiah’s sons, gouged out his eyes, and carted him off to Babylon. He also destroyed much of the city, including the palace, walls, and temple. The book of Lamentations records the horrified reaction of the faithful to the destruction of the city. He exiled many of the leading citizens, but he left most of the people in the land under the leadership of Gedaliah, a Judean-born governor. Jeremiah records the account of later atrocities of an insurgent, Ishmael (Jer. 40:7–41:15). Ishmael’s assassination of Gedaliah and murder of the Babylonian soldiers in Jerusalem led to yet another Babylonian incursion into Judah in 582 BC.
Nebuchadnezzar died in 562 BC. He was succeeded by his son Amel-Marduk (known in the Bible as Awel-Marduk [2 Kings 25:27]).
The most intimate portrait of Nebuchadnezzar comes from Dan. 1–4. After taking Daniel and the three friends into captivity, he trained them for royal service. Daniel became a trusted adviser to the king. In the end, it was Daniel who taught the king rather than the other way around. It is doubtful that Nebuchadnezzar ever worshiped the true God exclusively, but he came to recognize Yahweh’s great power and wisdom.
The chief officer of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon (r. 605–562 BC), he was one of several Babylonian officials who ordered Jeremiah’s removal from the courtyard during the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BC (Jer. 39:13 [KJV: “Nebushasban”]).
The chief officer of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon (r. 605–562 BC), he was one of several Babylonian officials who ordered Jeremiah’s removal from the courtyard during the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BC (Jer. 39:13 [KJV: “Nebushasban”]).
A Babylonian official, “the commander of the guard” (2 Kings 25:11), who appears in the biblical text at the fall of the city of Jerusalem in 586 BC. Nebuzaradan is credited with the complete razing of the temple, city structures, and defenses of Jerusalem (2 Kings 25:8–10). He also took many of the notable citizens into exile and left the poor behind (2 Kings 25:11–12). On instructions from Nebuchad-nezzar, Nebuzaradan treated Jeremiah well (Jer. 39:11–14). Nebuzaradan returned to the land of Judah a few years later and took another 745 captives into exile (Jer. 52:30).
Necho II was the third pharaoh of the Twenty-sixth Dynasty of Egypt (r. 610–595 BC). In 609 BC Necho led the Egyptian army through Syria-Palestine to help support the crumbling Assyrian Empire at Harran against the encroaching Babylonians. Necho’s goal was to consolidate Egyptian power over the region from Egypt to the Euphrates. While Necho was traveling through Israelite territory, King Josiah of Judah led his army to confront Necho and forced a battle near Megiddo (2 Kings 23:29–35; 2 Chron. 35:20–36:4; cf. Jer. 46:2). Necho had warned Josiah that he was only passing through, but the battle went forward, and Josiah was killed. Three months later, after the Egyptian and Assyrian armies were unsuccessful in battle, Necho summoned Josiah’s son Jehoahaz to Riblah in Syria and deposed him, taking him into exile in Egypt. In his stead, Necho renamed Josiah’s older son Eliakim, calling him “Jehoiakim,” and placed him on the throne of Judah. This made Judah a vassal of Egypt, and Necho required a heavy tribute of gold and silver from Jehoiakim. Four years later, Necho again led the Egyptian army in battle against Babylon at Carchemish and shortly thereafter at Hamath, both serious defeats for Necho. Soon Nebuchadnezzar was campaigning in Palestine, and Jehoiakim switched his allegiance (and vassal loyalty) from Egypt to Babylon. Necho II was able to prevent Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonian army from invading Egypt, but he never came farther east than Gaza from that time forward.
Necho II was the third pharaoh of the Twenty-sixth Dynasty of Egypt (r. 610–595 BC). In 609 BC Necho led the Egyptian army through Syria-Palestine to help support the crumbling Assyrian Empire at Harran against the encroaching Babylonians. Necho’s goal was to consolidate Egyptian power over the region from Egypt to the Euphrates. While Necho was traveling through Israelite territory, King Josiah of Judah led his army to confront Necho and forced a battle near Megiddo (2 Kings 23:29–35; 2 Chron. 35:20–36:4; cf. Jer. 46:2). Necho had warned Josiah that he was only passing through, but the battle went forward, and Josiah was killed. Three months later, after the Egyptian and Assyrian armies were unsuccessful in battle, Necho summoned Josiah’s son Jehoahaz to Riblah in Syria and deposed him, taking him into exile in Egypt. In his stead, Necho renamed Josiah’s older son Eliakim, calling him “Jehoiakim,” and placed him on the throne of Judah. This made Judah a vassal of Egypt, and Necho required a heavy tribute of gold and silver from Jehoiakim. Four years later, Necho again led the Egyptian army in battle against Babylon at Carchemish and shortly thereafter at Hamath, both serious defeats for Necho. Soon Nebuchadnezzar was campaigning in Palestine, and Jehoiakim switched his allegiance (and vassal loyalty) from Egypt to Babylon. Necho II was able to prevent Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonian army from invading Egypt, but he never came farther east than Gaza from that time forward.
In the Bible, the neck often is associated with a burden. In several places the Bible refers to oppression or servitude as a yoke around one’s neck (Gen. 27:40; Deut. 28:48; Jer. 28:10–14). The apostle Peter even likened following the Mosaic law to bearing a yoke on one’s neck (Acts 15:10). The neck was also associated with adornment. Having jewelry placed around one’s neck was a sign of honor (Gen. 41:42; Dan. 5:16). Similarly, good instruction or moral character could be described as jewelry around one’s neck (Prov. 1:8–9; 3:21–22).
A neck ornament, often of high value, used to enhance beauty (Song 1:10; 4:9; Ezek. 16:11). Occasionally, a necklace signifies high office (Gen. 41:42; Dan. 5:29). See also Jewels, Jewelry.
Necho II was the third pharaoh of the Twenty-sixth Dynasty of Egypt (r. 610–595 BC). In 609 BC Necho led the Egyptian army through Syria-Palestine to help support the crumbling Assyrian Empire at Harran against the encroaching Babylonians. Necho’s goal was to consolidate Egyptian power over the region from Egypt to the Euphrates. While Necho was traveling through Israelite territory, King Josiah of Judah led his army to confront Necho and forced a battle near Megiddo (2 Kings 23:29–35; 2 Chron. 35:20–36:4; cf. Jer. 46:2). Necho had warned Josiah that he was only passing through, but the battle went forward, and Josiah was killed. Three months later, after the Egyptian and Assyrian armies were unsuccessful in battle, Necho summoned Josiah’s son Jehoahaz to Riblah in Syria and deposed him, taking him into exile in Egypt. In his stead, Necho renamed Josiah’s older son Eliakim, calling him “Jehoiakim,” and placed him on the throne of Judah. This made Judah a vassal of Egypt, and Necho required a heavy tribute of gold and silver from Jehoiakim. Four years later, Necho again led the Egyptian army in battle against Babylon at Carchemish and shortly thereafter at Hamath, both serious defeats for Necho. Soon Nebuchadnezzar was campaigning in Palestine, and Jehoiakim switched his allegiance (and vassal loyalty) from Egypt to Babylon. Necho II was able to prevent Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonian army from invading Egypt, but he never came farther east than Gaza from that time forward.
The divination practice of consulting with the dead. Along with other forms of divination, sorcery, and magic, necromancy is strictly prohibited in Deut. 18:9–13. An example of necromancy, however, is recorded in 1 Sam. 28, where King Saul, devoid of any word from God due to the king’s repeated disobedience, persuades a “medium” to bring up Samuel from the dead to give guidance.
One of the sons of King Jehoiachin (Jeconiah) of Judah, who was carried off into Babylonian exile (1 Chron. 3:18).
No biblical texts describe an ancient needle, but archaeologists have found needles made of bronze, bone, and ivory. The needle would have been sharp at one end, with an eye for thread at the other, similar at least in basic form to the modern needle. Simple sewing is the obvious use for needles, but they also played a larger role in embroidery, which was seen as a gift from God (Exod. 35:35; cf. 31:6; see also Needlework). The use of the needle is implied in certain contexts where sewing is present, such as Gen. 3:7.
The only mention of the word “needle” in the Bible is in the reference to the “eye of a needle” in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt. 19:24; Mark 10:25; Luke 18:25). The purpose here is to contrast one of the smallest openings common to the household with one of Palestine’s largest animals. This comparison is an example of hyperbole, expressing the great difficulty that the rich would encounter in abandoning all to follow Christ.
Also called “embroidery,” the interweaving of various colors of thread to form decorative patterns, as seen in the tabernacle curtains. A high degree of skill was involved, as is evident in descriptions of these curtains: “Make the tabernacle with ten curtains of finely twisted linen and blue, purple and scarlet yarn, with cherubim woven into them by a skilled worker” (Exod. 26:1). Needlework was viewed as a skill given by God (Exod. 35:35). Embroidered garments were a sign of luxury, worn by the affluent and the high priest (Exod. 28:39). They were a trade commodity (Ezek. 27:16) and a spoil of war, prized by many (Judg. 5:30).
In Job 41:18 the KJV translates the Hebrew ’atishah as “neesings,” referring to the “snorting” (NIV) or “sneezing” (NRSV) in the description of Leviathan.
This arid region, whose name sometimes is translated as “the south,” extends from Judah to the Gulf of Aqaba and includes the Desert of Paran. Abraham and Isaac both lived in the northern part of the Negev (Gen. 20:1; 24:62). Part of Israel’s wilderness wanderings took place in the Negev (Num. 13:17), and they encountered the Amalekites there (Num. 13:29). Joshua conquered this region and allotted it to Judah and Simeon (Josh. 10:40; 15:21; 19:8). When David conducted raids against the Geshurites, the Girzites, and the Amalekites, he told the Philistines that he was attacking the Negev (1 Sam. 27:10). The Negev is also referenced in poetic and prophetic texts (Ps. 126:4; Isa. 21:1; 30:6; Jer. 13:19; 17:26; Zech. 7:7).
This arid region, whose name sometimes is translated as “the south,” extends from Judah to the Gulf of Aqaba and includes the Desert of Paran. Abraham and Isaac both lived in the northern part of the Negev (Gen. 20:1; 24:62). Part of Israel’s wilderness wanderings took place in the Negev (Num. 13:17), and they encountered the Amalekites there (Num. 13:29). Joshua conquered this region and allotted it to Judah and Simeon (Josh. 10:40; 15:21; 19:8). When David conducted raids against the Geshurites, the Girzites, and the Amalekites, he told the Philistines that he was attacking the Negev (1 Sam. 27:10). The Negev is also referenced in poetic and prophetic texts (Ps. 126:4; Isa. 21:1; 30:6; Jer. 13:19; 17:26; Zech. 7:7).
A transliteration of a Hebrew word (sg. and pl.) that appears in the superscription of a number of psalms (Pss. 4; 6; 54–55; 61; 67; 76). While the KJV transliterates the term in these psalm superscriptions as “Neginah, Neginoth” (but cf. Hab. 3:19 KJV), most modern versions, like the NIV, understand it to mean “stringed instruments.” In several other passages the Hebrew term refers to a mocking song or taunt (Job 30:9; Ps. 69:12; Lam. 3:14).
A transliteration of a Hebrew word (sg. and pl.) that appears in the superscription of a number of psalms (Pss. 4; 6; 54–55; 61; 67; 76). While the KJV transliterates the term in these psalm superscriptions as “Neginah, Neginoth” (but cf. Hab. 3:19 KJV), most modern versions, like the NIV, understand it to mean “stringed instruments.” In several other passages the Hebrew term refers to a mocking song or taunt (Job 30:9; Ps. 69:12; Lam. 3:14).
This name is associated with Shemaiah, a false prophet in Babylon of Jeremiah’s day (Jer. 29:24–32). It is uncertain whether “Nehelam” is a family name or a place name. Shemaiah had sent a letter to the priest Zephaniah, criticizing him for not reprimanding Jeremiah for his negative prophecies. In response, Jeremiah pronounced judgment from God against Shemaiah and his descendants. See also Shemaiah.
This name is associated with Shemaiah, a false prophet in Babylon of Jeremiah’s day (Jer. 29:24–32). It is uncertain whether “Nehelam” is a family name or a place name. Shemaiah had sent a letter to the priest Zephaniah, criticizing him for not reprimanding Jeremiah for his negative prophecies. In response, Jeremiah pronounced judgment from God against Shemaiah and his descendants. See also Shemaiah.
(1) The son of Hakaliah, he was a prominent leader of the people of God in the late postexilic period (Neh. 1:1–7:73; 8:9–10; 10:1–13:31). He returned to Jerusalem from the Persian capital, Susa, in order to rebuild the wall of Jerusalem and to fortify the morale of its citizens.
Before his return to Jerusalem, Nehemiah worked as the cupbearer to the king of Persia, Artaxerxes. There are three kings by that name during the history of the Persian Empire, but scholars are generally agreed that Nehemiah worked for Artaxerxes I (r. 464–424 BC). The job of the cupbearer was an important one. The king needed to rely on a close confidante to serve him his drink, since poisoning was an occupational hazard for ancient kings.
Although he was in a powerful position in Persia, Nehemiah was deeply saddened to hear the condition of Jerusalem from his visiting brother Hanani. In particular, the city’s walls were torn down and its gates were burned. While we might assume that the condition of the gates was the result of the Babylonian incursion into the city decades before (587/586 BC), it is possible, though not provable, that a more recent event was responsible.
In either case, Nehemiah could not hide his grief as he served Artaxerxes. Artaxerxes then granted him permission to return to Jerusalem and see to the restoration of the city. The king appointed Nehemiah governor of the Persian province of Yehud (Judah), and he returned to Jerusalem in the king’s twentieth year (445 BC).
Even though Nehemiah had the support of the Persian king, the inhabitants of the land and its leaders, notably Sanballat, did everything they could to undermine his efforts. These people were Samaritans from the north who were the descendants of intermarriage between the people of the north and those whom the Assyrians forced to immigrate there after their defeat of the northern kingdom of Israel in 722 BC. In spite of this opposition, Nehemiah successfully led the people in their efforts to rebuild the walls. In doing so, he showed great leadership skills and courage.
Although they are not often mentioned together, Nehemiah’s work in Jerusalem overlapped with that of Ezra. Both men were passionately concerned about the integrity and faithfulness of the people. Both of them at different times confronted Jewish men who divorced their wives and married pagan women. Nehemiah forcefully compelled them to divorce these foreign wives out of fear that the wives would lead their Jewish husbands to worship false gods.
Nehemiah worked hard, and God blessed him and his efforts in many ways. Even so, the account of Nehemiah’s work ends on a note of continuing problems as the people continued sinning (Neh. 13).
(2) A man who returned to Jerusalem from Babylon along with Zerubbabel in 539 BC (Ezra 2:2).
(3) The son of Azbuk, ruler of a half-district of Beth Zur, he helped rebuild the walls and gates of Jerusalem under the direction of Nehemiah son of Hakaliah (Neh. 3:16).
The KJV transliteration of a word of uncertain meaning that occurs in the superscription of Ps. 5. Most modern versions render the word as “flutes” or “pipes” (NIV).
A leader who returned with Zerubbabel from the Babylonian exile (Neh. 7:7). He may be the same person as the Rehum of Ezra 2:2.
The mother of King Jehoiachin (2 Kings 24:8). She was the daughter of Elnathan and from Jerusalem. She was taken to Babylonia with her son when Nebuchadnezzar conquered Jerusalem in 597 BC (2 Kings 24:15; Jer. 29:2). She is likely mentioned in Jer. 13:18.
In 2 Kings 18:4 the name given to the bronze snake that Moses made during the wilderness journey. In one of many incidents in which the Israelites grumbled against Moses, God sent poisonous snakes against the people (Num. 21:4–9). When they confessed their sin and cried out to Moses for relief, God directed him to make the bronze snake and erect it on a pole. Anyone who looked at it would live. Apparently, this object was kept and preserved over the centuries, for it still existed in King Hezekiah’s time. Being a sacred relic, it had become an object of idolatry. The king destroyed it as part of his spiritual reforms.
A town on the eastern border of the land allotted to Asher (Josh. 19:27). Most identify Neiel with Khirbet Yanin, located approximately nine miles west of Akko, near where the Plain of Akko gives way to the hills of Galilee.
A cry characteristic of a horse (see Jer. 8:16). It is used in a figurative sense in Jer. 5:8 (cf. 13:27) to depict Judah’s lust.
In the OT, “neighbor” is derived from the verb “to associate with.” This is an important connection because relationships of various kinds are central to the issue of neighbor. Depending on the context, a neighbor can include a friend (2 Sam. 13:3), a rival (1 Sam. 28:17), a lover (Jer. 3:1), or a spouse (Jer. 3:20). However, “neighbor” essentially defines someone who lives and works nearby, those with shared ethical responsibilities, rather than a family member (Prov. 3:29). Eventually, “neighbor” acquired the more technical meaning of “covenant member” or “fellow Israelite” (= “brother” [Jer. 31:34]). The legal literature prohibits bearing false witness against a neighbor (Deut. 5:20) as well as coveting a neighbor’s house, animal, slave, or wife (Deut. 5:21). Fraud, stealing, or withholding from a neighbor are prohibited (Lev. 19:13; Ps. 15:3). These are the negative stipulations. The theological ethics that arise from Lev. 19 are climactic—ethically, politically, socially, and economically. Positively, Israelites are to judge their neighbors justly (Lev. 19:15), loving their neighbors as themselves (19:18). Even the resident alien is to be protected by these core moral virtues (Lev. 19:33–34; cf. Exod. 12:43–49).
When the NT addresses the topic, not surprisingly it is Lev. 19:18 that is routinely cited. Asked about the greatest commandment, Jesus quotes Lev. 19:18 as the horizontal counterpart to loving the Lord (Matt. 19:16–30). A lawyer’s question put to Jesus, “Who is my neighbor?” elicits the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:29). Jesus teaches that extending mercy is more important than conveniently defining “neighbor.” A neighbor was anyone someone met in need—Jew, Gentile, or Samaritan (Luke 10:25–37). Jewish law came to define “neighbor” in purely legal terms within Judaism. Jesus addressed the limits of one’s responsibility, challenging the particularism of Judaism, denouncing prejudiced love, and including non-Jews. Beyond “in” or “out” groups, believers are now to pray for their enemies (Matt. 5:43–48). Mission work continues to expand social, political, and economic boundaries. The OT reality of relationships is still in force, but “neighbor” in the NT now prioritizes fellow believers (Rom. 13:8–10; 15:2; Gal. 6:10; Eph. 4:25; James 2:8).
In Josh. 19:33 the KJV takes “Nekeb” as a place name in the description of the tribal allotment given to Naphtali: “from Allon to Zaanannim, and Adami, Nekeb, and Jabneel.” Most modern versions treat “Adami” and “Nekeb” as two parts of one name: “Adami Nekeb” (NIV) or “Adami-nekeb” (NRSV, NLT). Adami Nekeb is identified as a city or town between the Sea of Galilee and Mount Tabor. Its precise location is uncertain.
(1) One of the ancestors of the temple servants (Nethinim) who returned to Jerusalem after the Babylonian captivity under the leadership of Zerubbabel (Ezra 2:48; Neh. 7:50). The fact that many of the names in the list are foreign has led to the belief that they were originally prisoners of war who were pressed into service to perform menial tasks as they assisted the Levites. (2) The patronymic ancestor of a family that could not establish its Israelite background after the exile (Neh. 7:62).
(1) The first of the three sons of Eliab, a Reubenite. His brothers, Dathan and Abiram, rebelled against Moses and Aaron and died in the Korah rebellion (Num. 26:9). (2) A son of Simeon and the eponymous ancestor of the Nemuelites (Num. 26:12; 1 Chron. 4:24). In Gen. 46:10; Exod. 6:15 his name is “Jemuel.”
(1) The first of the three sons of Eliab, a Reubenite. His brothers, Dathan and Abiram, rebelled against Moses and Aaron and died in the Korah rebellion (Num. 26:9). (2) A son of Simeon and the eponymous ancestor of the Nemuelites (Num. 26:12; 1 Chron. 4:24). In Gen. 46:10; Exod. 6:15 his name is “Jemuel.”
(1) A Levite, one of the three sons of Izhar, who was a brother of Amram, Moses’ father (Exod. 6:21). (2) A son of David born to an unnamed wife during the time he reigned from Jerusalem (2 Sam. 5:15; 1 Chron. 3:7; 14:6).
A descendant of Ishmael, Abraham’s son through Hagar. He is listed in the genealogies of Gen. 25:15; 1 Chron. 1:31. His descendants were defeated by the eastern Israelite tribes prior to the conquest (1 Chron. 5:19).
The son of one’s brother or sister. Many modern versions use the term of Lot as Abraham’s nephew (Gen. 12:5; 14:12) and in Ezra 8:19 of the nephews of Hashabiah, a descendant of the Levite Merari, returnees to Jerusalem. The KJV uses “nephew” in an archaic sense of a descendant, usually referring to grandson (Judg. 12:14; Job 18:19; Isa. 14:22; 1 Tim. 5:4).
The Hebrew word nepilim occurs only in Gen. 6:4; Num. 13:33. Some translations render the word as “giants.” Literally, it means “fallen ones.” Some scholars have considered the Nephilim to be offspring from the unions between the “sons of God” and the “daughters of humans,” but it is also possible that the writer was distinguishing between the Nephilim and the children of those unions who became the “heroes of old” and “men of renown” (Gen. 6:4). Descendants of the Nephilim were purported to have also lived after the flood (Deut. 2:10–11, 20–23; Josh. 14:15; 15:13–14; 2 Sam. 21:16–22; 1 Chron. 20:6–8). Since the entire human race, except for Noah and his family, was destroyed in the deluge, these descendants who lived in Canaan at the time of the exodus most likely descended through Ham, one of Noah’s sons (Gen. 10:8–20).
A descendant of Ishmael, Abraham’s son through Hagar. He is listed in the genealogies of Gen. 25:15; 1 Chron. 1:31. His descendants were defeated by the eastern Israelite tribes prior to the conquest (1 Chron. 5:19).
A person listed among the returnees from the Babylonian captivity with Zerubbabel (Ezra 2:50; Neh. 7:52). In some English translations the name is spelled differently in Ezra and in Nehemiah (e.g., KJV, ESV, NRSV, NASB).
A person listed among the returnees from the Babylonian captivity with Zerubbabel (Ezra 2:50; Neh. 7:52). In some English translations the name is spelled differently in Ezra and in Nehemiah (e.g., KJV, ESV, NRSV, NASB).
A variant spelling of “Naphtali” used in the KJV (Matt. 4:13, 15; Rev. 7:6). “Nephthalim” transliterates the Greek spelling of the Hebrew name.
A spring of water that formed part of the northern geographical boundary of the tribe of Judah (Josh. 15:9) and part of the southern geographical boundary of the tribe of Benjamin (18:15). The spring is a few miles northwest of Jerusalem.
A person listed among the returnees from the Babylonian captivity with Zerubbabel (Ezra 2:50; Neh. 7:52). In some English translations the name is spelled differently in Ezra and in Nehemiah (e.g., KJV, ESV, NRSV, NASB).
A person listed among the returnees from the Babylonian captivity with Zerubbabel (Ezra 2:50; Neh. 7:52). In some English translations the name is spelled differently in Ezra and in Nehemiah (e.g., KJV, ESV, NRSV, NASB).
A person listed among the returnees from the Babylonian captivity with Zerubbabel (Ezra 2:50; Neh. 7:52). In some English translations the name is spelled differently in Ezra and in Nehemiah (e.g., KJV, ESV, NRSV, NASB).
(1) The father of Abner, Saul’s general and cousin (1 Sam. 14:50–51; 2 Sam. 2:8; 1 Chron. 26:28). (2) Saul’s grandfather (1 Chron. 8:33; 9:39).
An individual greeted by the apostle Paul in Rom. 16:15. “Nereus and his sister” are named immediately after Philologus and Julia, and so they may have been son and daughter to this couple. All three names were common for slaves in Rome, especially for slaves in service to the emperor, so the family may have been either slaves or freedmen and freedwomen.
A Sumerian deity of Kuthah, a city approximately twenty miles northeast of Babylon. A god of the underworld, Nergal is associated with famine, sudden death, and fire. Akkadian literature identifies Nergal with Erra and designates Ereshkigal, the sister of Inanna/Ishtar, as a consort. In the OT, the name of the deity appears as part of the name of a Babylonian official, Nergal-Sharezer, in Jer. 39:3, 13. Nergal is considered an idol imported into the northern kingdom through the people of Kuth (2 Kings 17:30).
A Hebrew rendering of the name of the Babylonian official Nergal-shar-usur (“may Nergal protect the king”), who sat in the Jerusalem gate (Jer. 39:3, 13), married the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar, and later assassinated his brother-in-law, assuming the Babylonian throne in the years 559–556 BC.
An otherwise unknown ancestor of Jesus mentioned only in Luke 3:27 as the son of Melki and the father of Shealtiel.
The father of two men who assisted the prophet Jeremiah. Seraiah was a staff officer of the king who accompanied King Zedekiah of Judah to Babylon to deliver an oracle from Jeremiah (Jer. 51:59–64). Baruch was Jeremiah’s scribe and personal assistant (Jer. 32:12, 16; 36:4, 8, 14, 32; 43:3, 6).
The Roman emperor in the years AD 54–68, he is widely considered to be among the most ruthless emperors. Upon the death of the emperor Claudius in AD 54, Nero was crowned as ruler at the age of seventeen. In AD 59 he ordered that his mother be killed, a move that came as a result of her constant interference in political affairs. She would be one of many family members and close associates to be murdered by Nero.
A massive fire destroyed a significant portion of Rome in AD 64, and many citizens believed that the fire was ordered set by the emperor. Nero himself, however, blamed the fire on the Christians, and he pursued an agenda of persecution against them, executing many of them in extremely gruesome ways. Some early Christian tradition holds that the apostles Peter and Paul died in this wave of violence.
Due in large part to Nero’s growing despotism, his own armies eventually revolted against him, and he committed suicide in AD 68. The rumor arose soon after Nero’s death that he did not die but rather had fled to the Parthians, one of Rome’s archenemies. Another rumor spread that in fact he had died but had been resurrected; this myth is known as Nero redivivus.
Although Nero does not appear explicitly in the NT, he looms large in its background. He was reigning when Paul, while on trial before the Roman governor Festus, made the request that his case be brought before the emperor (Acts 25). Whether Paul ever did have his appeal heard by Nero is unknown, as the ending of Acts leaves this question open (see Acts 28). The Letter of 1 Peter may have been written during or shortly after Nero’s persecution of Christians in Rome, with the reference to the letter being written from “Babylon” (1 Pet. 5:13) likely functioning as a code for Rome. The memory of the Neronian persecution lies behind the book of Revelation, which contains several pieces of imagery and concepts alluding to Nero, the most notable of which appear in chapters 13 and 17. In Rev. 13 the Nero redivivus myth is echoed in the miraculous return to life of one of the heads of the beast, who then is given power to “make war” against Christians. Revelation 17 indicates that the beast symbolizes the Roman Empire, with its heads representing the emperors who demanded worship.
The image of a bird’s nest implies God-given security (Deut. 32:11; Ps. 104:17; Ezek. 31:6), yet no “nest” made by human hands protects from God’s judgment (Jer. 49:16; Obad. 4; Hab. 2:9). Exiles exchange “nesting” places with the wilderness birds (Isa. 34:11; Jer. 48:28), but Jesus had no “nest” at all (Matt. 8:20).
Nets, probably manufactured from thread fiber made from the bark of trees and knotted together, are used in the OT mostly for warfare or hunting/trapping people (literally and figuratively) (Job 18:8; 19:6; Ps. 10:9; Prov. 29:5; Lam. 1:13; Ezek. 12:13; 17:20; 19:8; 32:3; Hos. 5:1; 7:12; Mic. 7:2) and for trapping wildlife and birds (Prov. 1:17; Isa. 51:20; Ezek. 13:20). The methods of entrapping prey, including humans, involved digging and covering a pit with a net into which prey would fall and be trapped (Pss. 9:15; 35:7; 57:6; 140:5; 141:10); thus, in Ps. 9:15, “The nations have fallen into the pit they have dug; their feet are caught in the net they have hidden.”
There is also reference to use of nets for fishing in the OT, though these are more limited (Eccles. 9:12; Isa. 19:8; Ezek. 47:10; Hab. 1:15–17). In Hab. 1:15–17 nets (kherem) and dragnets (mikmeret) become symbolic objects of idolatry as they supply the needs of the users who in turn offer sacrifices to them in gratitude.
In the NT, nets are mentioned only in connection with fishing (Matt. 4:18–21; 13:47; Mark 1:16–19; Luke 5:2, 4–9; John 21:6, 8, 11).
There are at least seven and perhaps as many as ten different people with the name “Nethanel.” (1) The son of Zuar and head of the tribe of Issachar during the wandering in the wilderness, he was chosen to help Moses with the Israelite census (Num. 1:8; 2:5; 7:18, 23; 10:15). (2) King David’s older brother, the fourth son of Jesse (1 Chron. 2:14). (3) A Levite trumpeter who was part of the group that brought the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem (1 Chron. 15:24). (4) The father of the scribe Shemaiah, a Levite who recorded the names of the Levites (1 Chron. 24:6). He may be the same person as the Nethanel of 1 Chron. 15:24. (5) A Levite gatekeeper, a descendant of Asaph, the son of Obed-Edom (1 Chron. 26:4). He may be the same person as the Nethanel of 1 Chron. 15:24. (6) An official sent by King Jehoshaphat to teach people in Judah the Book of the Law (2 Chron. 7:17). (7) A Levite during Josiah’s reign who celebrated Passover with large offerings (2 Chron. 35:9). (8) A priest listed among those who had married a foreign wife (Ezra 10:22). (9) The head of a priestly family during Nehemiah’s governorship (Neh. 12:21). (10) A musician who played at the dedication of Jerusalem’s wall (Neh. 12:36). He may be the same person as the Nethanel of Neh. 12:21.
(1) A musician from among the “sons of Asaph,” who performed on harps, lyres, and cymbals during the time of David (1 Chron. 25:2, 12). (2) A Levite sent by King Jehoshaphat during the third year of his reign, together with eight other Levites, five royal officials, and two priests, to teach the Book of the Law to the towns of Judah (2 Chron. 17:8). (3) The father of Jehudi (Jer. 36:14), who was sent by the princes of Judah as their liaison to the prophet Jeremiah. (4) The father of Ishmael, a military official who assassinated Gedaliah, the governor of Judea appointed by the Babylonians (2 Kings 25:23–25; Jer. 40:8, 14–16; 41:1).
One of five classes in Israel assigned to the task of temple service. They were designated as assistants to the Levites (Ezra 8:20). The name “Nethinim” (NIV: “temple servants”; KJV: “Nethinims”) comes from a Hebrew word meaning “to give,” likely signifying that they were given to the service of the temple.
All eighteen references to the Nethinim are postexilic, though Scripture traces their roots to the time of David (Ezra 8:20). Other attempts to associate their origins with Moses, Joshua, and the Babylonian exile lack textual evidence. In addition, their close association with the sons of Solomon’s servants (Ezra 2:58; Neh. 7:60; 11:3), and the specific parenthetical clarification of their role as “workers at this house of God” (Ezra 7:24), coupled with their subsequent disappearance from the text, suggests that they were designated for a limited, temple-related purpose.
They inhabited Judah’s houses and cities after the Babylonian exile (1 Chron. 9:2), appeared in the census list in Ezra 2, were requested by Ezra (Ezra 8:17–20), and assisted in the rebuilding of the wall (Neh. 3:26–31). They also responded to the reforms of Nehemiah (Neh. 7:46–56). They were assigned living arrangements near the temple while in active service (Neh. 3:26) and were exempt from taxes (Ezra 7:24).
The appearance of foreign names among their descendants suggests the possibility of foreign derivation. Moreover, Nehemiah specifically points out that they were not among those chosen to repopulate Jerusalem after the exile, but rather lived in the towns of Judah and had overseers appointed over them (Neh. 11:3, 21).
A town and the surrounding region in the hill country of Judah. Netophah is associated with Bethlehem and probably was located nearby (1 Chron. 2:54; Neh. 7:26). Netophah usually is identified with modern Khir-bet Bedd Faluh (three and a half miles southeast of Bethlehem), where a nearby spring, ’Ain en-Natuf, likely preserves the name. Two of King David’s mighty warriors were from Netophah (2 Sam. 23:28–29). Several of those who returned from the exile were from Netophah (Ezra 2:22), and some of the Levites settled there (1 Chron. 9:16; Neh. 12:28).
Descended from Caleb (1 Chron. 2:54), the Netophathites were residents of Netophah (Neh. 12:28; cf. 2 Sam. 23:28–29).
A wild plant with serrated-edged leaves covered with fine hairs or spines that sting when touched. This and similar terms (“weed,” “thorn,” “thistle”) are used in Scripture especially with reference to the desolation and neglect of formerly inhabited places following their judgment and destruction. Precisely identifying the meaning of Hebrew botanical terms in Scripture is difficult, and various Hebrew words are translated as “nettle” in different English versions. The NIV uses “nettle” only once, translating the Hebrew word qimmos, in association with the thorns and brambles that will overrun desolate Edom (Isa. 34:13). Another Hebrew word, kharul, is translated as “nettle” in several versions (NRSV, NASB, NET, NAB), though it is rendered as “undergrowth,” “weed,” or “thistle” in others (Job 30:7; Prov. 24:31; Zeph. 2:9 NIV, NLT, HCSB).
“New” basically carries three senses in the Bible: (1) the beginning of a cycle of time such as the new moon, the beginning of the month; (2) fresh, pristine, or unused; (3) formerly unknown or recently coming into existence. Often, the latter two senses overlap and become difficult to distinguish. In certain cases the second sense is emphasized, and the actual age is not of primary concern: new grain (Lev. 23:16), new wine (Josh. 9:13), new ropes (Judg. 15:13), new cart (1 Sam. 6:7), new cloak (1 Kings 11:29), new bowl (2 Kings 2:20), and new tomb (Matt. 27:60). The third sense often is associated with the time of final restoration: God will do a new thing (Isa. 43:19), make a new covenant (Jer. 31:31), and create a new heavens and a new earth (Isa. 65:17).
The Bible places a high priority on the new works that God accomplishes, for there is little hope that people are capable of doing anything new (cf. Eccles. 1:9–10). These new works are contrasted with the old. There is continuity between them as the former establishes a foundation for the latter, but there is also discontinuity as the latter surpasses the former. Therefore, God will make a new (better) covenant (Jer. 31:31; Heb. 8:13), a new (better) heart (Ezek. 36:26), a new (better) creation (2 Cor. 5:17), and a new (better) heavens and earth (Isa. 65:17; Rev. 21:1).
The age to come is the time when Christ will return and establish his kingdom in all its fullness and glory. The Jews living in intertestamental times experienced great persecution and sufferings and looked ahead in hope and anticipation to a future coming age of a messiah, with all its associated blessings. Both John the Baptist and Jesus pointed to how this new age had already drawn near with their message: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near” (Matt. 3:2; 4:17). Jesus taught that “the kingdom of God has come upon you” during his earthly ministry (Matt. 12:28), and he promised that anyone who has been born again can “see” or “enter” the kingdom right then (using present-tense verbs in John 3:3, 5). At the same time, Jesus was equally clear that the kingdom had not come in all its fullness during his earthly ministry, and he instructed his disciples to continue to look ahead and pray specifically, “your kingdom come” (Matt. 6:10). Consequently, many have described the kingdom as being both “already” and “not yet” in the sense that God’s kingdom has already begun with Christ’s first coming, even though the fullness of the kingdom still lies in the future. Thus, in one sense “the age to come” began with Jesus’ earthly ministry, especially his death and resurrection. Peter could also describe the giving of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost as taking place in “the last days” (Acts 2:17), thus marking the beginning of the age to come. Consequently, believers find themselves living in the tension between already experiencing the transforming power of a new life in Christ and still living in what the Bible elsewhere describes as “the present evil age” (Gal. 1:4) under the power of Satan as “the god of this age” (2 Cor. 4:4). The challenge for believers is to look ahead by faith and “lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age” (1 Tim. 6:19), when Christ will return and fully establish his kingdom. See also Advent, Second; Eschatology; Second Coming.
One of the many pictures of salvation that the Bible uses is new birth. Peter praises God because “he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Pet. 1:3). In his conversation with Nicodemus, Jesus states, “No one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again” (John 3:3). He goes on to explain further that this act of new birth is the work of the Spirit (John 3:5–8). What Jesus speaks of, God had promised in the OT (Ezek. 36:25–27). Paul uses similar language when he asserts that God “made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions” (Eph. 2:5). Because of our sinful rebellion against God, humanity is spiritually dead. God the Father makes alive those who are spiritually dead by the work of the Spirit through the resurrection of Jesus. This new birth is the starting point for the believer’s moral transformation. See also Regeneration.
Covenant is one of the most significant concepts in the biblical material that affects our understanding of God, his relationship with his people (past, present, and future), and the structure and message of his word. Since the covenant concept is not a unique biblical idea, comparative literature from the world of the Scriptures has enriched our understanding of the nature and the function of covenant. This article highlights the covenant concept and the genre of covenant and provides a brief overview of the major biblical covenants.
Terminology
Defining “covenant.” What is a covenant (Heb. berit)? Most dictionaries refer to it as a pact/compact or an agreement. Although there is some uncertainty regarding the etymology of berit, the two most commonly suggested etymological derivations are from the Akkadian burru, which refers to the establishment of a legal situation by a testimony with an oath, or the Akkadian bittu, often translated as “to bind, fetter.” The NT counterpart word is diathēkē, defined as a “legal disposition of personal goods.” Interestingly, this NT term is used in reference to the initiative of one person who establishes the terms and provisions of the relationship, which is in keeping with unilateral OT covenants. Some OT dictionaries list the “covenant” root with the root for the word “to eat,” perhaps associating the covenant with a covenant meal.
If the concept of binding best represents the covenant terminology, then the covenant is something that binds parties together or obligates one party to the other. Although there are legal implications associated with covenant, the relational aspect of covenant should not be overlooked. A covenant is best understood as a relationship with related legalities. Marriage, for example, is a covenant that establishes and defines a relationship. This perhaps explains why God chose from the realm of relationships among humans the covenant metaphor to establish and communicate his intent in divine-human relationships. The concept of a covenant relationship between God and people is uniquely developed in the biblical material.
Some covenants are between persons of equal status (parity treaties); others are between a master and a servant (suzerainty treaties), between nations, between clans, and between a husband and a wife (Mal. 2:14). To “cut a covenant” at any level of society implies a solemn commitment to a relationship. Hittite treaties illustrate reports of covenant commitments that include a record of negotiations, formulations of terms, a statement that the act of covenant making actually happened, and a closure of negotiations with solemn ratification of the terms.
The most significant covenant relationship in the biblical material is the one between God and humankind. The uniqueness of Israel’s covenant relationship with Yahweh in contrast to all surrounding nations is established on the basis of Deut. 32:8–9. Although Yahweh gave the nations their inheritance, he selected Israel for his own personal care; he established a relationship with the nation independent of and prior to the nation’s association with his land. This was a unique application of the covenant that ran counter to the prevailing Semitic mind-set, which connected deities to specific geographic territories first and was concerned with the inhabitants of those areas only in a secondary sense. Individual OT believers celebrated their relationship with Yahweh and proclaimed him as the unrivaled universal God (Exod. 15; 1 Sam. 2; Isa. 40).
Other key terms. In addition to the “covenant” terminology word group, several other key terms fill out our understanding of this important concept.
“Oath” is a term used synonymously with “covenant” and functions at times to describe the making of a covenant. The oath emphasizes the liability and obligation associated in the relationship (Deut. 29:19). The oath can be taken by both parties (Gen. 26:28) or by just one party (Ezek. 17:13).
The word “testimony” refers to the contents of the two tablets of stone (Exod. 31:18) received by Moses from God at Mount Sinai. The Ark of the Covenant is also identified by the phrase “ark of the testimony” (Exod. 26:34; 30:6; 31:7 KJV, ESV). Testimony in the context of the covenant refers to the obligations placed upon the nation in covenant with Yahweh.
The term “word” can be understood in connection with covenant communication. The conquest of the land (a covenant promise) is viewed as a performance of the word of God (Deut. 9:5 KJV). The phrases “establish his covenant” (Deut. 8:18 KJV) and “perform his word” (Deut. 9:5 KJV) are parallel ideas within the overall concept of covenant. The sure “word of the Lord” to David in 2 Sam. 7:4 can be contrasted with worthless words of the nation used in making a covenant with God (Hos. 10:4).
Torah is a Hebrew term related to covenant. The terms berit and torah are found in parallel structure in Ps. 78:10. The binding arrangement between God and his people is ultimately based upon and regulated by the instructions of his word. The phrase “Book of the Law” (2 Kings 22:8) has the same covenant implications as the phrase “tablets of the Testimony” (Exod. 31:18 ESV, NASB). God indicted the priesthood for misguiding the people and causing them to stumble at the law (Mal. 2:5–8) and ultimately to be misguided in their relationship with him.
Khesed is another Hebrew term that is frequently used with relation to a covenant. Defined as “steadfast covenant loyalty,” it is also understood as grace, mercy, kindness, loving-kindness. Khesed is that characteristic of God which causes him to act consistently and faithfully regarding self-imposed obligations in covenant relationships despite the failure or success of the other party. The khesed of God will never cease (Lam. 3:19–21) because he keeps covenant and mercy (Deut. 7:9, 12). The loyalty of God to David is stated in 2 Sam. 7:14–15 and celebrated in Ps. 89:14, 24, 28, 33–34, 49. In contrast, the people are indicted for their lack of loyalty (Hos. 4:1).
Common phrases. The most common covenant-making phrase is “to cut a covenant.” Two possible practices lie behind this phrase. The first reflects a practice in Mesopotamia and Syria, cutting a covenant into a tablet with a stylus. This may be somewhat similar to what is found in Exod. 31:18, where it is said that the two tablets of stone were “inscribed by the finger of God.” The second practice behind this phrase is the cutting of sacrificial animals. The halving of animals was part of the covenant made with Abraham in Gen. 15:9–18. In a situation of covenant violation God tells Israel that he will treat them like the calf they cut in covenant making (Jer. 34:17–19). Covenant making is also described as establishing a covenant (2 Sam. 23:5), giving a covenant (Gen. 9:12), and erecting a covenant (Exod. 6:4).
Faithfulness and loyalty to a covenant are expressed by several phrases. “Keep a covenant” exhorts the covenant parties to watch, guard, exercise faithfulness to the terms of the relationship established (Exod. 34:7). “Observe a covenant” implies the demonstration of covenant fidelity in observing and doing (Gen. 17:9–10; Exod. 19:5; NIV: “keep my covenant”). God is obviously faithful in observing the covenant (Deut. 7:9–12). “Remember a covenant” conveys more than just a mental exercise, especially when God is the subject of the verbal action of remembering. When God remembers a covenant, he acts with resolve and intervention (Gen. 8:1; 19:29; 30:22; Exod. 2:24).
Covenant infidelity is expressed by the phrases “break the covenant” (Lev. 26:14–16; Jer. 11:10; 31:32; 33:20–21), “not faithful” (Ps. 78:37), “violate the covenant” (Deut. 17:2; Josh. 7:11, 15; 23:16), and “forsake the covenant” (Jer. 22:9; cf. Deut. 29:25; 1 Kings 19:10, 14).
The Covenant Genre
We now turn to the form, content, and function of a covenant, or the covenant genre. There is evidence of a common treaty form used by ancient Near Eastern peoples to govern relationships between nations and tribes. This evidence dates back to the third millennium BC and is derived from literary texts discovered in the ancient Near East. The most helpful contributions to this discussion come from the Hittites (1400–1200 BC), the Assyrians (800–600 BC), and the Babylonians. From this evidence, we are able to identify four ancient Near Eastern arrangements.
1. The intertribal treaty was a legal arrangement between tribes and clans for various purposes such as the purchase of land, trading, or peaceful coexistence. The arrangements made in this format were equally binding on both parties. A possible biblical example is the arrangement between Abraham and Abimelek in Gen. 21:22–34 or the arrangement between Abimelek and Isaac in Gen. 26:28.
2. The parity treaty was an arrangement made between kings and princes who were equal in each other’s eyes. This arrangement involved mutual participation, as illustrated in the economic relationship established between King Solomon and King Hiram of Tyre in 1 Kings 5:1–12.
3. The suzerainty treaty was established between two parties, one inferior and one superior. The distinctive emphasis of the treaty was on the superior party, the suzerain. In this arrangement the suzerain agrees to make certain provisions for the vassal. He agrees to defend the vassal in the case of attack, along with permitting the existence of the vassal nation. In addition, the suzerain has the right to take tribute from the vassal at any time. The vassal, for his part, agrees to a position of servanthood but not slavery. Vassals honor the suzerain with tribute and material goods.
There are six basic parts to the format of this treaty. Many scholars believe that the suzerainty treaty form has influenced the structure of the book of Deuteronomy.
(a) The treaty begins with the preamble that identifies the treaty’s author/originator (cf. Deut. 1:1–6a; 5:6a, 23–27).
(b) The second part is the prologue, which contains a review of the past relationship between the vassal and the suzerain constructed in an “I-Thou” format (cf. Deut. 1:6b–3:29; 2:7; 4:32–38). The purpose of this section is to review the previous acts of benevolence demonstrated by the suzerain toward the vassal. The faithfulness of the suzerain to the vassal would perhaps instill some measure of confidence for entrance into this relationship. In Hittite treaties there was often a grace ethic ideology that characterized the prologue and served as a basis of appeal for obedience. The Hittites demonstrated a measure of appreciation for conquered vassals and treated them with dignity by allowing them limited sovereignty. The Assyrians operated with a power ethic that motivated obedience by threatening dismemberment, torture, and even death. Yahweh appealed to Israel on the basis of the grace of redemption (Exod. 20:8–11; Deut. 5:12–15) and the privilege of revelation (Deut. 4:12; cf. Rom. 3:2).
(c) The stipulations are the third part of the treaty form. These are the expectations of the suzerain for the vassal (cf. Deut. 4:1–23; 6:4–7:2; 10:12–22; 12–26). The stipulations call for the vassal to be loyal in war, to loyally return political refugees, and to not murmur against the suzerain and his kingdom. The heart of the stipulation in Deuteronomy is the appeal to “love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength” (6:5), one of the most important verses of the OT.
(d) The deposit and public reading of the treaty is the next division. This section instructs the vassal to place the treaty in his sanctuary and directs the vassal to publicly read the document from one to four times per year (cf. Deut. 10:1–5; 31:9–13). A regular reading was designed to keep the stipulations before the vassal in order to nurture respect for the suzerain.
(e) In the next part, a list of witnesses, usually gods, are called upon to observe the covenant and to punish any breach of it (cf. Deut. 30:19–20).
(f) The final part of the treaty is a section of blessing and curse. This section contains a list of potential rewards for faithfulness and terrifying possibilities of retribution for covenant violations (cf. Deut. 28–29).
4. The royal grant treaty, used in both biblical and secular literature, is somewhat similar to the suzerainty treaty. The distinctive difference is that the obligation of the grant is not on the vassal but rather on the suzerain to protect the rights of the vassal. In this format the curse is directed against any third party that would oppose the vassal or against the suzerain who would act unfaithfully against the vassal.
Covenants in the Bible
Types of covenants. The material on covenant form, content, and structure comes into play when attempts are made to interpret the major covenants recorded in the Bible (Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and new). Initial discussions usually revolve around whether these covenants are conditional or unconditional. Although there is merit to this discussion, covenants should also be understood in light of which party is bearing the treaty obligation. As described above, the obligation of the suzerainty treaty is upon the vassal to fulfill the expectations of the suzerain. In the grant treaty the obligation is placed upon the suzerain to fulfill the treaty promises made to the vassal. There is a sense of conditionality and unconditionality in both treaty forms.
On this basis, the Mosaic covenant is most fittingly understood in light of the suzerainty treaty. This covenant made at Mount Sinai established Israel as a covenant nation. Yahweh never intended to create a relationship with Israel on the basis of this covenant. Rather, he chose this covenant form as the means to regulate his relationship with Israel, the nation that he had just graciously redeemed. The Mosaic covenant addressed every aspect of Israelite life. so that the prophetic charges against the nation’s transgressions were considered covenant violations.
The Abrahamic and Davidic covenants are more like a grant. In the Abrahamic covenant Yahweh is obligating himself to gift Israel with land, seed, and blessing (Gen. 12–17). The halving of animals in Gen. 15:9–20 resembles a covenant-cutting ceremony in which Yahweh, in the form of a smoking firepot, walks between the animals, obligating himself to the terms of the covenant. In the Davidic covenant (2 Sam. 7; Ps. 89), Yahweh obligates himself to provide David and his descendants a king and a kingdom. The new covenant is first referenced by Moses in Deut. 30:6 and then developed more extensively in Jer. 31:31–33 and Ezek. 36. Scholars debate the nature of this covenant and the promises associated with it. Some define it as a grant and speak of it in unconditional terms, while others view it as an administrative covenant. The new covenant anticipates a change in the heart of the vassal that ultimately facilitates keeping of the law. The OT Scriptures see this happening in connection with Israel’s occupation of the land at a future time.
Covenant leadership positions. In addition to the very specific covenant arrangements made by God in the OT defining and regulating the life and future of Israel, God established three key covenant leadership positions for the nation: prophet, priest, and king (Deut. 17–18). Their connection with the covenant is evident from the fact that their origin and function are detailed in the covenant book of Deuteronomy.
God provided a prophet (Deut. 18:9–22) for the nation so that it would not learn the abominations of the Canaanites and surrounding nations. God desired spiritual integrity for his people and established the prophet as his mouthpiece to speak what he commanded (Deut. 18:18–20). The prophet was to be an Israelite who fit a Moses-like pattern (Deut. 18:18–19). The writing and nonwriting prophets often called Israel back to covenant fidelity. They did this by using legal terminology to illustrate covenant violations, thus establishing covenant lawsuits against them. Isaiah 1 is a case made by God against the nation. In this lawsuit God functions as judge, jury, and lawyer.
The priest (Deut. 17:8–13; 18:1–8; 33:8–11) had a threefold function within the covenant community. He was a mediator of people before God and of God before people. This particular function of the priesthood was broad and encompassed much of its work. The priest was a teacher who sought from the Torah resolution to disagreements between parties (cf. Jer. 18:18). It is also worth noting that the teaching of the priest preceded sacrifice. Finally, he was a minister of sacrifice. The priest led Israel in worship and sacrifice, giving instruction concerning what was clean and unclean (Lev. 13–15).
The king was also a provision of the covenant (Deut. 17). Kingship was not a divine accommodation to the desire of Israel (1 Sam. 8) but rather a part of the overall covenant plan of God revealed to Abraham (Gen. 17:16). The promise of kingship was reiterated in Gen. 35:11; 49:10. The duty of the king involved administration of the kingdom on the basis of the word of God (Deut. 17:18–20; cf. Prov. 29:4, 14).
Covenant in the Old Testament. Covenant is a dominant theme that gives cohesiveness to the structure of the OT and distinguishes the history of Israel. The phrase “covenant history” can be used to describe the biblical literature that recounts the events and episodes of Israelite life. It is a macrogenre that characterizes the historical narratives of the OT. Although this large literary corpus of historical narrative shares a covenant perspective, the individual books within the narrative corpus are noted for the attention they give to various aspects of the covenant relationship. For example, Gen. 12–50 develops the covenant promises of seed and blessing through a number of subgenres such as genealogies and family stories. Joshua, on the other hand, engages several military subgenres to recount the tension between the promise of land occupation and the responsibility of Israel to occupy the land. Covenant history is a realistic presentation of the tensions associated with the covenant relationship between Yahweh and the nation of Israel.
Finally, the psalms have a direct covenant connection emphasizing covenant worship. Psalm 119 (esp. vv. 57–64) is filled with covenant terms that relate to God’s word (testimonies, laws, oath, judgments). Marching to the place of worship designated by the covenant is reflected in the Psalms of Ascent.
Covenant in the New Testament. Although the covenant theme is less pervasive in the NT, its christological significance is profound. The NT highlights the significant messianic role of Christ in relation to the covenants. Paul references the new covenant in both books of Corinthians (1 Cor. 11:25; 2 Cor. 3:6). Each celebration of the Lord’s Supper reminds us that the shed blood of Christ is the blood of the new covenant. The new covenant is cut in connection with or on the basis of his death, burial, and resurrection (1 Cor. 11:25). The writer of the book of Hebrews gives detailed attention to how the new covenant functions in contrast to the old Mosaic covenant. The writer explains that Jesus is the guarantor of a better covenant (7:22; 8:6–7). Finally, Paul indicates that we are now considered ministers of the new covenant ministry (2 Cor. 3:6).
There is at least some confusion surrounding the ultimate hope that God has planned for his people. Many have assumed that the references in Scripture to heaven mean that our ultimate destiny is essentially to become disembodied spirits, floating around in outer space. Such a view is actually far closer to the Greek concept of the immortality of the soul (where the soul is understood to be imprisoned in a physical body and freed only at death) than it is to the Christian view of a bodily resurrection. God chose to create humanity as a unity of a physical body and a nonmaterial soul or spirit. Death is described as the “last enemy” in 1 Cor. 15:26 because it involves the unnatural separation of the physical body from the inner person of the soul/spirit (see Eccles. 12:7). The clear NT hope is that God will raise our physical bodies so that people will have resurrected bodies for all eternity.
The biblical concept of the bodily resurrection naturally leads to the future hope of new heavens surrounding a new earth. This hope of a new heavens and a new earth is mentioned in Isaiah’s prophecy where God “will create new heavens and a new earth” (Isa. 65:17), which “will endure before” him (66:22). However, it is in Rev. 21–22 that John gives us a detailed description of “a new heaven and a new earth” (21:1). It is no surprise that Peter says that “we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth” (2 Pet. 3:13).
One of the key questions here involves the relationship between this present world order and that of the age to come. Here there is both discontinuity and continuity. On the one hand, Peter tells us, “The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare” (2 Pet. 3:10). At the same time, just as there was a definite continuity between Jesus’ earthly body and his resurrection body, and in the same way that there will be a continuity between our own present earthly bodies and our future resurrection bodies (which will be “sown in weakness . . . raised in power” [1 Cor. 15:43]), so too should we expect a continuity between the present heavens and earth and those to come. The Christian hope is a supernatural transformation whereby redeemed humanity’s resurrection is linked to the renewal of the whole creation (Rom. 8:18–25; 1 Cor. 15:20–28; Phil. 3:20–21).
Both Ezekiel and Revelation envision a new Jerusalem and use similar imagery to describe it and to emphasize God’s presence in the city (Ezek. 48:30–35; Rev. 21:1–22:5). According to Revelation, the throne of God, the Lamb, and the river of life are present in the new Jerusalem, which comes down from heaven, is made of gold and glass, is adorned with jewels, and is in the shape of a cube. Only those with names in the Lamb’s book of life will dwell in the city (Rev. 21:27). The city represents a new, spiritual order (Gal. 4:25–26; Heb. 12:22). See also Eschatology; Jerusalem.
The northern section of Jerusalem, also referred to as the Second District (HCSB) or Second Quarter (ESV, NRSV, NASB) (2 Kings 22:14; 2 Chron. 34:22; cf. Zeph. 1:10).
The collection of twenty-seven books and letters that along with the OT comprises the Christian Bible. The NT contains accounts of the life and ministry of Jesus Christ, the story of the expansion of the early church, and letters to Christian individuals and churches. The name “New Testament” is derived from the “new covenant” between God and humankind instituted by Jesus Christ (Luke 22:20) through his atoning crucifixion and confirmed through his subsequent resurrection. In AD 397 the NT books were formally adopted by the third Council of Carthage. Prior to its official approval, the canonical list was suggested by Athanasius in his thirty-ninth Paschal letter, dated AD 367, though these same books had been in circulation in the early church for many years. See also Bible Formation and Canon.
The word “apocrypha” is derived from a Greek word meaning “secret” or “hidden” and refers to texts regarded by some Jews and Christians as religiously valuable but not meeting the criteria of canonicity. The more specific title “New Testament Apocrypha” distinguishes certain writings from those commonly referred to as “the Apocrypha,” a collection of works written by Jews (with later Christian editing in places) between approx. 200 BC and AD 90, recognized as Scripture by Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches but generally rejected by Protestants (see Apocrypha, Old Testament). What is loosely called New Testament Apocrypha is no single collection but actually a vast, amorphous corpus that can only be selectively discussed here. (The Apostolic Fathers, texts written mainly in the late first century and second century, and later church fathers are not considered here as part of this grouping.) In broadest terms, these texts concern themselves with Jesus Christ and his apostles, but often from a perspective that differs from the NT portraits. Nevertheless, many of the works appear to be either dependent upon or influenced by the genres and characters of the NT, principally gospels, letters, apostolic acts, and apocalypse.
These writings remain outside of the Christian canon for the following reasons. First, the texts, at least in their final form, were published in the postapostolic period (the second century), whereas all of the NT writings were believed to have been written by an apostle (Matthew, John, Paul, Peter) or an apostolic associate (Mark, Luke). Some apocryphal writings (e.g., Gospel of Thomas) may simply adapt earlier, apostolic tradition. Second, the point of view in these writings does not represent a broad constituency in the early church. Some appear to reflect the ideology of various gnostic groups, which became prominent in the second century throughout the Mediterranean, with centers in Antioch in Syria and Alexandria in Egypt. Although a diverse phenomenon, gnosticism generally embraced secret knowledge as a vehicle for salvation from the material world, a development of extreme Platonism. Therefore, Jesus saves through an esoteric teaching, not his atoning death. The diminution of the cross led to the orthodox rejection of this perspective. In attempting to refute gnostics, Irenaeus of Lyons (died c. AD 195) appropriates what he calls the “rule of faith” (regula fidei), which was passed on by the apostles and everywhere accepted by the churches (Haer. 1.8.1; 1.9.4). Other apocryphal texts appear to represent a conservative Jewish-Christian perspective. The church gradually shifted from being primarily a Jewish religious group that accepted non-Jews to what Christians themselves described as a “third race” in distinction from Jews and pagans. Relationships between Jews and Christians continued to sour because of mutual persecution, competition, and misunderstanding. By the second century, some Christian writers claimed God had rejected Israel (e.g., the author of Epistle of Barnabas). Many texts emphasize celibacy, fasting, and other rigorously ascetic practices, which go beyond the moderate guidelines in the NT. These factors contributed to the marginalization of Jewish believers in Jesus, making their writings suspect. Like the gnostic texts, the primary concern was a diminished Christology. Consequently, many of these writings were not copied (and therefore preserved) by Christian copyists and thus eventually were lost. However, many texts were discovered at Nag Hammadi in Egypt in 1945. Scraps of papyri have also been recovered from various sites in the dry sands of the desert. But many of the apocryphal writings survive only in fragments (e.g., Acts of Paul ).
The New Testament Apocrypha provide a window into the various ways Christians attempted to live out their faith in Jesus Christ, the rise of ascetic monasticism, and why orthodox Christianity ultimately parted ways with both rabbinic Judaism and gnosticism. The diversity of the church’s past may provide context and insight for the challenges of the present.
Gospels
The apocryphal Gospels often amplify or add to material that is more limited in the canonical Gospels. This is especially the case with Jesus’ youth and the passion narrative. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas depicts, among other things, the child Jesus making sparrows out of clay and then bringing them to life. The Gospel of Peter, which dates probably from the middle of the second century and is likely dependent on Mark’s Gospel, begins with Jesus’ trial and breaks off in what is presumably a resurrection appearance to a group of disciples. According to some scholars, the Gospel of Peter is cited by Origen (c. AD 185–255) as evidence that Jesus’ purported brothers were Joseph’s from an earlier marriage, thereby protecting the perpetual virginity of Mary (Comm. ser. Matt. 10.17). This gospel reflects a strong anti-Jewish bias. The Protevangelium of James relates the miraculous birth of Jesus’ mother, Mary.
Other apocryphal Gospels single out a particular apostle who alone is given special revelation. A complete version of the Gospel of Thomas was discovered among the Nag Hammadi writings and is perhaps the earliest apocryphal gospel. The emphasis on Thomas suggests a Syrian provenance. Containing little narrative, the text is primarily a collection of Jesus’ sayings (loosely grouped according to theme), some of which are dependent on the Gospel of Luke (e.g., 47, 104). James, the brother of the Lord, is given prominence (12), but there are also polemics against traditional Jewish piety: prayer, fasting, alms, and circumcision (6, 14, 53, 104). The Gospel of Judas, which is dated to around the middle of the second century and survives in one or two copies, consists primarily of dialogues between Judas Iscariot and Jesus during his passion. Judas is presented as the only disciple to recognize Jesus’ true origin and identity. In response, Jesus praises him: “You will exceed all of [the other apostles]. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me” (43). This text reflects a gnostic point of view (probably Sethian, representing a group that venerated the biblical figure of Seth and viewed Jesus as his reincarnation, as in the Apocryphon of John, the Gospel of the Egyptians, and the Apocalypse of Paul ). Whereas Peter makes a confession of faith in the canonical Gospels, Judas says, “I know who you are and where you have come from. You are from the immortal realm of Barbelo” (35). (In gnostic mythology, Barbelo [Coptic for “Great Emission”] is the divine Mother of all, who is often described as the “Forethought of the Father,” the “Infinite One.”) The Gospel of Judas has Jesus reject the God of Israel (21) and attack the Christian church and its leadership (26–27).
The church fathers often mention Jewish gospels (Gospel of the Hebrews, Gospel of the Nazarenes, Gospel of the Ebionites), including a Hebrew version of Matthew (Irenaeus, Haer. 3.1.1; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.25.4). Clement of Alexandria (c. AD 150–215) cites a saying of Jesus from the Gospel of the Hebrews: “He that marvels shall reign, and he that has reigned shall rest” (Strom. 2.9.45; 5.14.96). Epiphanius (c. AD 310/320–403) preserves part of the Gospel of the Ebionites: “It came to pass that John was baptizing, and Pharisees and all Jerusalem went out to him and were baptized. And John had a garment of camel’s hair and a leather girdle about his waist, and his food, it is said, was wild honey, the taste of which was that of manna, as a cake dipped in oil” (Pan. 30.13.4–5). The Ebionites (the “poor”) were a Jewish-Christian group. The wording may reflect a vegetarian perspective, a popular form of asceticism, which annoyed Epiphanius, who claimed that the Ebionites “were resolved to make the word of truth into a lie and to put a cake in the place of locusts.” However, the text only claims that the wild honey had the taste of manna, “as a cake dipped in oil.” The discovery of papyri in Egypt has also provided agrapha (unwritten sayings) of Jesus. Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 840 depicts a debate between Jesus and a Pharisaic chief priest over viewing the holy utensils in the temple in an impure state.
Apostolic Acts
This subgenre typically involves a narrative of an apostle’s missionary activity (e.g., Andrew, Peter, John, Paul, Philip) from the time of Jesus’ resurrection to his own martyrdom (or, in the case of John, simply his death). Books of acts also feature other important individuals in the early history of the church, such as Barnabas and even Pilate. Some function to explain how the Christian faith reached a community. The Acts of Thomas, which originates probably in Syrian Christianity, depicts his missionary activity in India. They are partly dependent on Luke’s book of Acts, but they reflect a greater interest in biographical detail. The Acts of Paul and Thecla provides a physical description of the apostle: “a man of small stature, with a bald head and crooked legs, in a good state of body, with eyebrows meeting and nose somewhat hooked, full of friendliness.” Contrary to popular assumption and the impression that one gets from Paul’s letters (2 Cor. 10:10), the depiction in its cultural context is flattering. Thecla is presented as a young, engaged woman from a prominent family in Iconium. She believes Paul’s gospel, which emphasizes sexual abstinence (see 1 Cor. 7:1–16). She breaks off her engagement, and the apostle permits her to become a teacher. The details may be a reaction against developments in the early church, which struggled over sexuality and women’s roles in leadership. In the Acts of Peter, Luke’s presentation of a conflict between Simon Magus and Simon Peter is greatly expanded; this version describes, among other things, Simon Magus levitating over Rome, only to be grounded by the prayers of Peter (4, 6, 9, 11–18, 23, 31).
Letters
The letter genre was not especially popular for those writing Christian apocryphal literature. In one letter, Abgar, king of Edessa, writes Jesus, inviting him to visit his city. Jesus responds with a courteous letter relating that he must fulfill his mission but, following his ascension, will send a disciple (see Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 1.13). There are also fourteen letters between Paul and the Stoic philosopher Seneca (c. 4 BC–AD 65). No one treats these letters as authentic, but they do provide insight into early Christian curiosities. Paul mentions a letter to the Laodiceans, which has not survived (Col. 4:16), so someone in the fourth century or earlier patched together phrases mainly from Philippians and Galatians to provide such a letter. The work known as 3 Corinthians, which contains a letter from the Corinthian church and Paul’s reply, probably serves the same purpose.
Apocalypses
An apocalypse features a seer who receives revelation from a supernatural revealer. Apocalypses are attributed to, among others, Paul, Peter, Thomas, Stephen, and James. They typically feature revelations made by Jesus to his disciples in the period between his resurrection and ascension. The book of Revelation appears to have had little influence on these works. Many of them are gnostic. But the Apocalypse of Peter, which most likely originated in Palestinian Jewish Christianity during the Bar Kokhba Revolt (AD 132–135), was highly valued, particularly for its depiction of hell, in which twenty-one sinners suffer in ways appropriate to their sin.
Apocrypha, Old Testament–The Greek word apokrypha means “hidden” or “concealed,” and later it came to refer to religious books considered to be of inferior quality to the OT and the NT. During the third century, several church fathers (e.g., Origen [d. 253], Irenaeus [d. c. 200], Tertullian [d. 220]) used this term to distinguish these works from canonical works. Currently, the phrase “Old Testament Apocrypha” refers to Jewish literary works written between approximately 200 BC and AD 90 that were included in the earliest Greek codices of the LXX.
The Apocrypha and the Development of the Canon
By the first century AD, many Jews believed that prophecy continued only until about the time of Ezra, around the end of the fifth century BC, and thus several of the apocryphal works were associated with famous biblical characters such as Jeremiah, Baruch, or Solomon, most likely in order to give them credibility. In Matt. 23:34–35; Luke 11:49–51 Jesus appears to limit the OT canon to the books known to be in the Jewish canon. Both passages record Jesus stating that the Jewish nation will be held responsible for the blood of the prophets from “the blood of Abel” (see Gen. 4:8–10), the first recorded murder, “to the blood of Zechariah” (see 2 Chron. 24:20–22), the last recorded murder. The implication is that biblical history spans from Genesis to Chronicles (most likely the last book in the order of the Hebrew Bible at the time of Jesus), which is equivalent to saying from Genesis to Malachi in the English Bible.
Based upon this evidence, it is doubtful that the early Jews ever considered the apocryphal works part of their canon. In reality, the early Greek codices were Christian collections from the fourth to fifth centuries AD. Apparently, by that time there were significant questions concerning which books made up the OT canon. By the end of the first century AD, Christians had been dispersed all over the Roman Empire, so it is more than likely that few Christians would have had contact with Jews or exposure to their scriptural canon. It is reasonable to assume that during this period of uncertainty, the apocryphal books were thought by some to be part of the Jewish OT canon. A major turning point occurred in the fourth century AD when Jerome (c. 345–420) was asked to write a standardized translation of the Latin Bible. Jerome used original Greek and Hebrew texts to correct his Latin translation. He did not believe that the apocryphal books were part of the OT since they were not included in the Hebrew manuscripts. Nevertheless, some argue that he was coerced into adding them to the Latin Vulgate by Augustine of Hippo (354–430), who believed that at least part of the apocryphal books were to be included in the OT canon. The Latin Vulgate became the standard translation of the Roman Catholic Church for well over a thousand years, and thus the Old Testament Apocrypha were gradually accepted in the church. Another major turning point occurred during the Protestant Reformation when Luther’s views were argued at the Council of Trent (convened three times between 1545 and 1563) that the Apocrypha were not part of the OT canon. The Roman Catholic Church had used 2 Macc. 12:43–45 to substantiate its doctrines of purgatory and praying for the dead; likewise Tobit and other apocryphal works were used to substantiate works of righteousness (i.e, not faith alone for salvation). On April 8, 1546, at the Council of Trent, the Roman Catholic Church decreed that the Apocrypha were indeed part of the Christian canon and pronounced anathema upon those who disagreed.
Since the time of Luther, Protestants have rejected the canonicity of the Apocrypha. However, the Roman Catholic Church has argued that fifteen apocryphal works are part of their authoritative Scriptures. The Greek Orthodox Church includes two additional works (3 Maccabees; Psalm 151) in its authoritative canon.
Arguments against including Apocryphal Books in the Canon
There are significant arguments for not including these books in the church’s authoritative canon.
1. The NT never cites any apocryphal books as inspired; Jesus’ usage of Scripture suggests that only the books in the Hebrew Bible were authoritative (Matt. 23:34–35; Luke 11:50–51).
2. None of the apocryphal books claims to be the word of the Lord, as do many OT books (Num. 35:1, 9; Josh. 1:1; Isa. 1:10, 18, 24; Jer. 1:2; Ezek. 1:3; Hos. 1:1; Joel 1:1).
3. The OT canon is confirmed by many sources: 2 Esd. 14:45 (twenty-four books); Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1.37–42 (twenty-two books); Melito (all OT books except perhaps Esther); the Jerusalem List (all thirty-nine books); Origen (twenty-two books). All of these sources list the same thirty-nine OT books except that they are grouped differently (with the exception of Melito, who may omit Esther).
4. There is little evidence to suggest that there were two different OT canons, one that developed in Palestine and one in Egypt. In fact, Philo, a Jew from Alexandria, never quotes from an apocryphal book as authoritative.
5. There are significant historical inaccuracies in the Apocrypha. For example, the events in the book of Tobit (1:3–5) are chronologically incompatible: Tobit is said to live in Nineveh about 722 BC and yet also to have seen the division of the united kingdom in about 931 BC.
6. There are theological inconsistencies. For example, 2 Macc. 12:43–45 espouses praying for the dead, but canonical books maintain that decisions about one’s eternal destiny can be made only before death (Heb. 9:27). Eleven out of fifteen apocryphal books contain some type of inaccuracies. Those that do not either are very short (i.e., Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Young Men; Prayer of Manasseh) or their content makes it difficult to determine if they contain errors (i.e., Wisdom of Solomon; Susanna).
7. Many early church fathers spoke against the canonicity of much or all of the Apocrypha (Melito, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Jerome); no major church father accepted all of the apocryphal books until Augustine. The apocryphal books have never been universally accepted by the church.
8. The earliest list of OT canon by Melito (c. AD 170) does not include them.
9. During the Council of Trent, Martin Luther’s views against the canonicity of the Apocrypha were discussed, citing the NT, early church fathers, and Jewish teachers in support. The Roman Catholic Church responded by canonizing the Apocrypha.
The Books of the Old Testament Apocrypha
Even though the apocryphal books should not be considered part of the authoritative canon, they are useful for understanding Jewish thought and interests in the intertestamental period and the development of certain concepts during this period (e.g., the importance of the Torah, the apocalyptic view of history, the kingdom of God).
Traditionally, the Apocrypha consisted of fifteen books that were included in Roman Catholic Bibles and were usually identified as deuterocanonical (i.e., second canon) works. However, more recently this number has been reduced to thirteen since 4 Ezra (sometimes called 2 Esdras or Apocalypse of Ezra) and the Prayer of Manasseh were never found in the oldest Greek codices of the LXX: Vaticanus (c. AD 350), Sinaiticus (c. AD 400), and Alexandrinus (c. AD 450). These two works are now correctly considered pseudepigraphal books (i.e., false writings that were never thought to be part of the biblical canon).
The list below follows the Roman Catholic canon. In addition to these texts, several other writings are included in the Greek Orthodox, Armenian, Georgian, Syriac, and Ethiopian canons: 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, Psalm 151, Psalms 152–55, 1 Enoch, Jubilees, 2 Baruch (Letter of Baruch), 3 Baruch (Apocalypse of Baruch), 4 Baruch (Paralipomena of Jeremiah), and 1–3 Megabyan (Ethiopic Maccabees).
Books included in the Old Testament Apocrypha. The following thirteen books are included in the Old Testament Apocrypha.
• Wisdom of Solomon (latter part of the first century BC): This work contains Jewish wisdom traditions and describes the benefits of wisdom and the joys that accompany righteous living, as well as punishments for the wicked.
• Sirach (or Ecclesiasticus; c. 180 BC): This book is very similar to the biblical book of Proverbs, also containing Jewish wisdom traditions. It includes moral and ethical maxims, proverbs, songs of praise, theological and philosophical reflections on life, and customs of the day.
• Tobit (c. 180 BC): A romantic story teaching that God comes to the aid of those who remain faithful to his laws. Tobit, a righteous Israelite living in Nineveh, is an example to the rest of the captives even in the midst of great adversities. Tobit becomes blind and prays to God to restore his sight. At the same time in Media, Sarah, Tobit’s niece, who had lost seven bridegrooms in succession, prays to God for deliverance from the demon Asmodeus. God sends the angel Raphael to deliver them both.
• Judith (c. 150 BC): Nebuchadnezzar sends Holofernes to punish the people west of Babylon for their insubordination. The author exhorts the Jews to remain obedient to the law amid foreign occupation by the Babylonians. The people of Judea pray to God for help; in answer, Judith beguiles Holofernes, gets him thoroughly drunk, and then decapitates him.
• 1 Esdras (or 3 Ezra; c. second to first century BC): This book is a retelling of parts of Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah. It begins abruptly describing the reinstitution of the Passover by King Josiah in Jerusalem about 622/621 BC and continues to Ezra’s reforms about 458 BC. The majority of the book emphasizes Ezra’s reforms.
• 1 Maccabees (c. latter part of the second century BC): This book describes Judean history and especially the military campaigns of the Maccabees from the accession of Antiochus IV (Epiphanes) in about 175 BC to the reign of John Hyrcanus I (134–104 BC). This work is a very accurate history and is the primary source of recorded events during this period.
• 2 Maccabees (c. end of second century to beginning of first century BC): This book is much more theologically oriented than 1 Maccabees in recording events of Jewish history from the time of the high priest Onias III and the Syrian king Seleucus IV (c. 180 BC) to the defeat of Nicanor’s army (c. 161 BC). It appears to adopt an anti-Hasmonean viewpoint by highlighting concepts such as the resurrection of the body and the efficacious nature of martyrdom.
• Baruch (c. second to first century BC): This claims to be a letter from Baruch to those living in Jerusalem. It begins with a confirmation that Jerusalem was destroyed because of Israel’s sinfulness and was to be read on a feast day as a confession of their sin (1:14).
• Epistle of Jeremiah (third to first century BC): The date of this work is now confirmed by a first-century BC Greek manuscript from Cave 7 of Qumran. The text contains 72 or 73 verses and is most likely influenced by Jer. 10:1–16. This letter, supposedly from Jeremiah to Jewish captives soon to be taken to Babylon, describes the folly of worshiping idols.
• Additions to Esther (c. second to first century BC): These six additions (e.g., Mordecai’s dream and its interpretation, prayers of Mordecai and Esther) to the Greek text of Esther apparently were introduced to highlight the religious aspect of the story that the author felt was lacking.
• Susanna (c. second to first century BC): This work and the next two were added to the book of Daniel sometime during the first century BC. Susanna is tried and found guilty because of the lies that two elders of Israel told about her after she refused their sexual advances. Daniel, however, inspired by God, cross-examines the two men, proves that they have lied, and exonerates Susanna.
• Bel and the Dragon (c. second to first century BC): This work contains two stories demonstrating the wisdom of Daniel. In the first, he outwits the priests of Bel who go each night through a secret entrance to eat the offerings left for Bel. Daniel reveals their deception and proves their great statue of Bel, the patron deity of Babylon, to be a worthless idol. In the second story, Daniel is thrown into the lions’ den for killing a dragon that the Babylonians believed to be a god. However, the angel of the Lord protects Daniel and brings Habakkuk from Judea with food for him. On the seventh day, Daniel is removed from the lions’ den and his enemies are thrown in.
• Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Young Men (c. second to first century BC): Before being thrown into the fiery furnace (cf. Dan. 3:23), Abednego (“Azariah” in Hebrew) prays, asking God to bring glory to his name through this ordeal. Then follows the song of the three young men (Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego), who sing praise and glory to God.
Books no longer in the Old Testament Apocrypha. The following two books are no longer included in the Old Testament Apocrypha.
• 2 Esdras (or 4 Ezra, Apocalypse of Ezra; c. first century AD): An apocalyptic book dealing with the problem of evil in the world, or more specifically why an all-powerful, loving God allows such great evils to befall humankind. The reason why turns out to be human sinfulness.
• Prayer of Manasseh (c. second to first century BC): According to 2 Chron. 33:10–13, Manasseh prayed to God while in captivity and asked for forgiveness for his many sins. God responds by forgiving him and allowing him to return to Israel. This work purports to record this amazing prayer.
NT textual criticism is the science of discerning the reading of the original Greek text of the NT. NT textual criticism is relatively different from the textual criticism of the Hebrew OT, since the two Testaments were copied in substantially different ways, resulting in quite different issues and types of copying problems.
Textual criticism is necessary for two reasons: (1) none of the original texts for any of the books of the NT (the autographs) have survived; (2) all the surviving copies that we do have differ from one another in at least minor ways. NT textual criticism is the discipline of examining all the readings found in the surviving copies (including other early translations and the writings of the church fathers) in order to discern the most-likely original text of the NT.
In many ways there is nothing surprising or unusual about this activity. This same discipline is used in the case of all ancient documents where the original no longer exists and there are multiple, but different, surviving copies. What sets the textual criticism of the Bible apart from the textual criticism of Plato, Aristotle, or any other extrabiblical author is the importance of Scripture. It is absolutely crucial that scholars be as accurate as possible in discerning the words of the Bible. Present-day doctrinal statements about the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture usually focus on how it is the actual documents written by the original authors of the Bible (the autographs) that were inspired and inerrant, and not necessarily each and every copy or translation that was ever made. At the same time, NT textual criticism provides strong and ample evidence that the standard translations of today are reasonable copies of the original texts and therefore are inspired and authoritative.
Another reality that sets the textual criticism of the Bible apart from the textual criticism of any other ancient document involves the large number of manuscripts containing all or parts of the NT. Aristotle’s writings (384–322 BC) have survived in only five ancient manuscripts, the earliest of which was last copied around AD 1100. Thus, the manuscript support for discerning the proper wording of Aristotle’s writings is five manuscripts, the earliest of which was copied some fourteen hundred years after its original composition. The NT, by contrast, has been preserved in almost 5,500 handwritten Greek manuscripts, the earliest of which may be only decades removed from the actual composition of the NT. In addition, there are tens of thousands of other manuscripts of the NT translated into other languages of the early church (especially Latin, Syriac, and Coptic) and perhaps something like a million quotations and allusions to the NT in the writings of the church fathers. The amount of manuscript support for the Bible is without parallel when compared with any other ancient writing, thus providing a firm foundation for the trustworthiness of the Bible.
New Testament Manuscripts
If all the surviving Greek manuscripts of the NT from all the museums and ancient-book rooms around the world could be gathered together and examined, there would be a number of obvious differences. For one thing, these manuscripts are written on different materials. The oldest manuscripts include some 116 papyri written on papyrus sheets (made from the stems of a papyrus plant pressed together to make a flat writing surface) and date from as early as AD 125 until the eighth century. Virtually all the rest of the hand-copied manuscripts were written on parchment (leather from animal skins stretched thin) and range in date from the second century to as late as the sixteenth century.
Another significant difference involves the style of handwriting. Here there are two primary categories: uncials (majuscules) and minuscules. The three hundred or so uncial manuscripts were written using an early style of “capital letters” (comparable to hand-printing a text in all capital letters) and range in date from the second century to as late as the tenth or eleventh century, with the majority between the fourth and tenth centuries. The 2,800 or so minuscule manuscripts were written in a later style of semicursive using primarily “lowercase letters” (more comparable to cursive penmanship today) and range in date from the ninth to the sixteenth centuries.
A third basic difference involves the arrangement of the material. In addition to standard biblical texts arranged in regular canonical order, almost half (about 2,200) of the manuscripts of the Greek NT are lectionaries composed of series of short passages designed to be read on a fixed regular schedule, almost like the responsive readings found in many modern hymnals. These range in date from the ninth to the sixteenth centuries and cover the vast majority of the passages in the NT, and thus they constitute another significant source of information about the proper reading of the original text.
Other obvious differences in outward appearance involve the scope of the original work and how well it has been preserved. Only a small number of manuscripts were written to encompass the entire Bible, including the OT (usually the Greek translation called the “Septuagint”), the NT, and frequently various books of the Apocrypha as well. Other manuscripts were designed to include only the NT. However, the vast majority of the surviving Greek manuscripts of the NT originally included only a portion of the NT (due primarily to the cost in materials and labor), most often a collection of the four Gospels, or the Pauline Epistles, or some other smaller subset of the NT. Still another reality is that many ancient manuscripts may have lost pages or the binding may have broken, leaving only incomplete sections of the original manuscript. Some NT manuscripts have survived only in the form of torn fragments, sometimes only a portion of a page in size.
Different Readings
Different readings among these manuscripts fit into two broad categories: unintentional changes and deliberate corrections. Unintentional changes took place when a scribe was genuinely trying to make a good copy and due to simple human error failed to read a letter clearly, did not hear a word clearly (assuming that the text was being dictated aloud), inadvertently wrote a homonym instead of the right word, lost the proper place on the page, or mistakenly assumed that some marginal note on the page belonged in the text. Deliberate corrections were also a recognized part of the work of a scribe whereby a scribe tried to make a text read better or more clearly. Although some of the early church fathers warn of heretics making deliberate changes in the text for theological reasons (actual instances of this are hard to document), sincere Christians sometimes sought to improve the theological clarity or style of the text.
There are various estimates of the number of places where different manuscripts have different readings. If one is taking stock of any and all differences regardless of how minor, then there are more than ten thousand different places in the text that have textual problems. The Textus Receptus, or Majority Text (underlying the KJV translation), has some five to six thousand differences from the Greek texts underlying most other, more recent English translations, although most of these are minor differences in word order, spelling, and so forth and make no practical difference in content. The standard scholarly United Bible Societies Greek NT includes a discussion of something like 1,440 sets of variant readings that were deemed sufficiently significant for inclusion in the critical apparatus. A contemporary translation such as the NIV lists over a hundred specific instances of textual uncertainty in the NT of sufficient significance to provide a possible alternative translation.
Still another question involves the theological significance of these differences among the surviving manuscripts. Although this can be a potentially threatening topic, it should be noted at the beginning that no area of Christian doctrine stands or falls because of possible textual problems. The entire foundation of theology is firm and certain. Nevertheless, there are perhaps several dozen places where textual differences have definite implications for either doctrine or practice. For example, does 1 Tim. 3:16 help establish the deity of Christ by referring to Christ as “God” (KJV), or is “he” (most modern translations) the correct reading? Or when we quote the Lord’s Prayer, should we include the final words “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory forever. Amen” (from the KJV)? Or, for still another issue, is it proper to preach and teach from the resurrection stories in Mark 16:9–20 or the story of the woman caught in adultery in John 7:53–8:11 (both of which are absent from early and reliable manuscripts)? English versions answer these questions differently.
However, a large number of textual problems are more minor in nature and involve little if any practical differences in application. For example, in 1 John 1:4 was John focusing on “your” joy or “our” joy? But by far the largest category involves textual differences that make no discernible differences at all in our English translations. Examples include differences in Greek word order, a choice between certain Greek tenses, similar grammatical constructions, the usage of synonyms, and some spelling differences. Differences in this final category are so minor that often they cannot be detected in English translations.
Different Families or Text Types
Another difference involves the “text type,” or family of manuscripts. Certain manuscripts with similar readings have a family resemblance with other similar manuscripts. The issue here involves patterns of copying errors among these manuscripts. In the late nineteenth century, two British scholars, B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, developed what they identified as the genealogical method for NT textual criticism. One component of this approach involves the recognition of at least three different “families” of related manuscripts presumably related to three different geographical areas of the early church: Byzantine or Syrian manuscripts (based in Syria or the later Byzantine Empire in Turkey), Alexandrian manuscripts (based in Egypt), and Western manuscripts (based more in Italy and North Africa). This classification system involves generalizations comparable to discerning a person’s nationality and ethnic background by various physical features. Some manuscripts are relatively easy to classify using this system, others are more difficult, and still others turn out to be quite mixed in nature. Yet there is a certain helpfulness to this system.
Certain conclusions can be drawn from this classification system. The vast majority of manuscripts (some 80 to 90 percent) are the Byzantine text type. These include virtually all the minuscules and lectionaries and tend to be relatively later in date. The remaining 10 to 20 percent of the manuscripts tend to be earlier and include the Alexandrian manuscripts, the handful of Western manuscripts, and a good number of early manuscripts that cannot be easily placed in either of these two categories. The Alexandrian readings tend to be briefer and more succinct in style, while the Western readings tend to be more unusual and eccentric, in contrast to the Byzantine ones, which tend to be more polished and harmonizing.
Applying Textual Criticism
There are different approaches to NT textual criticism. The two primary ones are (1) the King James/Majority Text approach associated with the KJV, and (2) the contemporary scholarly approach followed by virtually all other standard translations beginning with Westcott and Hort’s English Revised Version of 1881. Both approaches are built around an understanding of the history of the text. The Majority Text argument is built on the assumption that the original reading will have been preserved in the largest number of surviving manuscripts, in this case the relatively later Byzantine manuscripts. The contemporary scholarly approach assumes a so-called genealogical method whereby the Majority Text of the Byzantine manuscripts is believed to be the later “offspring” of the earlier Alexandrian and Western manuscripts and therefore more or less irrelevant for discovering the original text. Thus, this method essentially rejects the Byzantine manuscripts in favor of the earlier ones, especially the Alexandrian ones. Manuscripts are still counted and dated, but priority is given to the earlier manuscripts and to readings found in several different text types.
Textual Criticism, Old Testament–Centuries separate the earliest attested Hebrew manuscripts (MSS) and the canonical form of the biblical text. The transmission of the Hebrew Bible in many ancient and medieval sources reveals differences between the texts; consequently, textual criticism involves the comparison and analysis of those textual differences in both ancient sources and modern printed editions of the OT. Text critics collect from MSS and other textual witnesses all the details in which these texts differ from one another and then evaluate those differences to arrive at the most accurate original reading. Some of these differences were created in the course of textual transmission, while others are the result of scribal additions and the processes that created readings and texts over the centuries. In many cases, these differences are minimal and exert no significant theological or interpretational influence on the text itself.
Goals and Assumptions
The text critic seeks to recover the processes of the text’s written transmission so as to restore it not to the most ancient form or earliest literary strand of the biblical corpus, nor to the earliest attested textual form, but rather to the copy that contained the finished literary product and that stood at the beginning of the textual transmission process. Consequently, the text critic accepts the notion of a single, authentic text (Urtext) from which all extant MSS of a specific book have evolved rather than the existence of ancient parallel texts. Text critics identify and resolve textual errors in the text by revealing the history of their emergence, explaining how those errors or inconsistencies occurred. They consider and evaluate deviant or differing readings from the textual apparatus (notes written at the bottom of the printed critical versions) of the Masoretic Text (MT), such as Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia and R. Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica. Textual scholars remove or correct readings from extant or existing final forms of MSS and sometimes, in the absence of manuscript evidence, conjecturally emend or “suggest translational alternatives” for the text when the extant evidence defies a reasonable or clear reading. The most recent work by the Hebrew University Bible Project (HUBP) eliminates all scholarly conjectures proposed without manuscript evidence from its consideration in the text-critical process.
Discrepancies between textual witnesses to the OT include differences in book, chapter, and verse divisions, as well as layout and chapter sequence. The nature of scribal transmission assumes that although the scribes carefully copied the sacred texts, errors occasionally occurred. These textual corruptions may be unintentional, such as the reduplication of a letter or a word, confusion between letters that resemble one another, wrong word divisions, incorrect vocalization, or the accidental reversal of two letters. Occasionally a word may have been omitted, or words from marginal or interlinear comments (called a “gloss”) may have been inserted in the main text. In the case of intentional corruptions or alterations, scribes attempted to harmonize the morphology or grammar of a text, give explanations (also called “conflation”), incorporate material from parallel passages, substitute euphemistic words or phrases in place of offensive material, and, rarely, alter the texts theologically when the original wording seemed disrespectful to God.
Text Families and Translations
Some scholars theorize that the Hebrew MSS evolved from three local textual families arranged geographically, though more-recent scholarship seems to refute this view as simplistic. According to this theory, during the fifth century BC two local texts developed independently of each other in Babylon and Palestine. A third, the Alexandrian family, broke off from the Old Palestinian text and eventually served as the “source” or “model” for the translation of the Septuagint (LXX) between 250 BC and AD 150. The Samaritan Pentateuch resulted from the Palestinian family and, combined with the Babylonian tradition, formed the official corpus of the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets. The corpus of the Latter Prophets derived solely from the Palestinian text. This combination of texts formed the authoritative basis for the MT. The Leningrad Codex (AD 1009) is the oldest preserved complete Hebrew Bible, providing one of the best examples of the MT. The 1947 discovery of the Qumran scrolls gave text-critical scholars access to customary scribal activity and affirmed the existence of pluriform, or multiple, text types. These scrolls, transmitted during the third through first centuries BC, represented all the OT books except Esther and provided a Hebrew text witness that reinforced the relative veracity of the MT.
Ancient translations, such as the LXX, provided the source text from which the Old Greek, Lucian, Eusebius, and other Greek versions developed. In addition, the LXX formed the basis of the Old Latin, Vulgate, and Syriac versions as well as the Targumim. The importance of the elementary text-critical principle “Texts do not count, they weigh,” which forms the basic assumption when evaluating textual witnesses and comparing potential readings, becomes clearer in light of these developments. For example, a text critic would consider a reading in a Qumran witness as the equivalent or superior to readings attested in the LXX and its offspring texts.
Weighing Variant Readings
A consideration of variant readings involves all Hebrew and reconstructed details that differ from an accepted form of the MT, including additions, subtractions, letter and word differentiation, differences in word division, vocalization (or pronunciation), and word sequence. Scholars denote the MT as the textus receptus, or “received text,” which forms the translation base then of the Hebrew Scriptures. In some cases, critics of the OT believe that the MSS and versions reflect varying stages or versions in the editing of a final text. For example, 2 Sam. 22 and Ps. 18 are parallel texts in slightly different forms. Text critics acknowledge the existence of alternate forms of identical texts that were equally acceptable to the ancient poet by assuming that during the time of the OT, authors modernized or contemporized texts in an appropriate manner. One text does not have to be superior to the other; instead, both are legitimate, as in the case of Isa. 2:2–4 and Mic. 4:1–5.
OT text critics explore explanations for contradictory or different readings among text traditions, evaluate the weight of the textual evidence, and analyze a host of readings to determine which reading best explains the others or harmonizes with the literary evidence. In addition, text scholars ask whether a particular reading is grammatically acceptable and whether the word or phrase fits into the syntactic context of the sentence and the scope of the wider passage. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, text critics generally prefer the shorter reading because throughout history texts have a tendency to expand. In addition, when the MT and all other witnesses offer a text that is unobjectionable, makes sense, and has been preserved without a variant, scholars often assume that it is the “original text” preserved by the tradition and should be accepted. Furthermore, in the case of two alternative readings, if an explanation is available as to the manner in which one of these may have arisen from the other, then scholars consider the explicable reading as the weaker of the two.
The complexity of the text-critical enterprise, particularly when applied to the Hebrew Scriptures, requires a combination of intuition, skill, experience, careful attention to detail, and facility in cognate languages. The absence of extrabiblical Hebrew texts makes the OT textual analysis more difficult, since the scholar has a limited corpus of material from which to draw conclusions. OT text criticism is an ongoing process that will engage biblical scholars for years to come.
The appropriation and adaptation of an OT text in the NT, often labeled “biblical intertextuality,” “innerbiblical exegesis,” or “biblical allusion,” reflects the exegetical process whereby biblical writers deliberately appeal to the OT in order to elucidate, expand, or lend authority to NT revelation. This hermeneutical process finds its origins in the reuse of earlier OT texts by later OT writers. Later, the process was refined by the practices of scribal exegetes and rabbinical writers from the postexilic period well into the first century AD. This approach to interpretation recognized the dynamic character of Scripture and sought to contemporize its messages to address the issues facing changing audiences.
The biblical reader should keep in mind that as far as the NT writers were concerned, the OT texts comprised the authoritative corpus of material identified as the “Scriptures.” Consequently, the NT authors appeal to the authority of these accepted texts as the basis upon which to build or expand their theological argument, to reinforce their credentials as God’s spokesmen, and to appropriate and adapt OT revelation to address contemporary circumstances. The NT citation of an OT text assumes the familiarity of the audience with that earlier text, since the recollection of a specific Scripture by the NT writer in the formulation of his later message necessarily evokes in the minds of the audience a literary and logical connection. By drawing on the OT corpus, the NT author reinforces the continuity of God’s message and forges the identification of the NT audience with the experiences and promises made to their Israelite ancestors.
The most frequently cited OT books in the NT are Deuteronomy, Psalms, and Isaiah, underscoring the significance and importance of these early Israelite texts to the reformulation, expansion, and elucidation of NT revelation. In addition, the numerous NT references to these books indicate that they must have played a key role in the memories of the NT audience, forming the foundation for developing faith and doctrine.
Identifying Quotations and Allusions
One critical and often difficult task facing the reader centers on locating potential intertextual references in the NT, since not all scriptural citations and allusions are obvious, and the practice does not conform easily to an exacting scientific process. Familiarity with the OT increases the ability to recognize the borrowing of OT themes and passages by the NT. In addition, many NT writers understandably quoted from the LXX, the Greek translation of the OT, rather than from a Hebrew text tradition, since they themselves were writing in Greek. Consequently, some variations in wording based on the type of text tradition employed by the NT writer add complexity to the enterprise. In addition, NT writers often modeled the exegetical methods of their Jewish counterparts, which, though typical of their culture and environment, seem unorthodox to some scholars.
Richard Hays, in his 1989 book Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, presents seven criteria against which to evaluate the presence of biblical allusions: (1) availability (did the original author and readers have access to the source?); (2) volume (how extensive is the repetition of words from a previous text?); (3) recurrence (how often does the writer explicitly refer to the same passage?); (4) thematic coherence (does the quotation support the surrounding context?); (5) historical plausibility (could the writer have intended the alleged meaning?); (6) history of interpretation; and (7) satisfaction (does the citation illuminate the meaning of the surrounding text?). These principles provide a sufficient, if minimalistic, methodology for determining authentic instances of biblical intertextuality.
Quotations, Allusions, and Typology
The NT use of the OT generally falls into three broad categories: direct quotations (or citations), allusions, and typology.
Direct quotations. Quotations normally are identified by an introductory formula, such as “it is written” or “you have heard it said,” which serves to mark the upcoming quotation. In many instances the NT writer identifies the OT source, either by genre (e.g., “as it was spoken by the prophets”) or by the name of the author (“this was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah”). Occasionally, the NT writer relates his scriptural quotation or teaching to an individual, as in the case of the treatise on divorce in Matt. 19, where the Gospel writer repeatedly mentions Moses. In some instances the NT author combines parts of two different citations derived from two separate sources, attributing the entire quotation to one author, sometimes the more obscure of the two. For example, in Matt. 27:9, a discussion of the betrayal of Judas and the thirty pieces of silver, Matthew conflates Zech. 11:12–13 and Jer. 19:1–13 or (18:2–12 or 32:6–9) but assigns the entire citation to Jeremiah. The absence of a formal marker does not negate the possibility of textual borrowing; however, the literary connection between a NT passage and an OT predecessor would have to be established on the basis of literary affinities, rare terminology or expressions, thematic similarities, and associative concepts connecting the OT and the NT contexts.
Allusions and echoes. In contrast, biblical allusion employs no introductory or formulaic introduction identifying or marking the OT reference. While all direct quotations may be classified as biblical allusions, not all biblical allusions include direct citation formulas. Both direct citation and biblical allusion denote the deliberate borrowing and recontextualizing, transformation, or reinterpretation of a specific text, which has been incorporated into the later text in order to accommodate the writer’s message to a contemporary audience. The contextual environment of the antecedent, or OT text, influences and informs the interpretation of the NT text. The NT author intentionally evokes in the minds of his knowledgeable audience a specific textual referent along with its contextual associations, reformulating them in an innovative manner.
In a biblical echo, words or images are employed by a biblical writer in order to evoke conscious memories associated with multiple texts or with general themes. For example, the formulaic expression “the living God, who made the heavens and the earth and the sea and everything in them” (Acts 14:15) recalls multiple OT texts (e.g., Ps. 96:5; Isa. 42:5; Jon. 1:9) connected to incomparability statements reinforcing the sovereignty of God. The echo in Acts 17:26 generally recalls the creation account in Genesis, without invoking a specific verse or phrase. Although a NT writer may draw on biblical echoes without necessarily invoking a specific context of an individual passage, echoes may consist of interconnected layers of meaning that arise from differing historical settings and circumstances, each of which contributes additional meaning to the echo.
Typology and analogy. The NT writers often sought to employ OT texts by means of typology, reinforcing links between an OT event or concept and the subsequent development and transformation of that “type” in the NT. A “type” is a divinely appointed person, place, thing, or institution that has significance in its original literary and historical context but also points toward someone or something in later biblical revelation. The “antitype” denotes that which is prefigured by the original type. By means of typology, and to some degree, analogy, the NT writers demonstrate later revelation as superseding or fulfilling OT prophecies, underscoring the continuity of the NT with the OT and emphasizing its role as theologically transformative and expansive. Some predominant examples include the Passover lamb as a type of Christ (1 Pet. 1:19; cf. Rev. 5:11–14), the Aaronic priesthood compared and contrasted as a precursor of Christ’s priestly ministry (Heb. 5; 7–9), and the earthly tabernacle as a pattern for the heavenly tabernacle (Heb. 9).
The NT writers were also fond of analogy, delineating points of comparison between OT characters and accounts with NT teachings. For instance, Rom. 4 sets forth a lengthy discourse comparing Abraham’s justification by faith and the new relationship experienced by believers who are justified by faith through Christ. Analogy and typology are not mutually exclusive, as in the case of Rom. 4. Closely related to these hermeneutical methods is the infrequent use of allegory by the NT writers, such as the allegory of Sarah and Hagar in Gal. 4:21–31. The distinction lies in the nature of allegorical approach, which focuses on symbolism, or a “ ‘this’ really means ‘that’ ” interpretational framework.
The Roles of Context and Authorial Intent
Scholars continue to debate the extent to which the OT context influences and affects the NT message, particularly in the case of citations or allusions. Some suggest that biblical quotations are purely incidental and should be divorced from their original contextual moorings and evaluated independent of those contexts, while others understand the original context of an OT passage to contribute information that leads to correct NT interpretation. The question revolves around determining the degree of authorial intent. In other words, to what extent can today’s reader, historically removed by time and culture, recover the original intention behind the biblical writer’s calculated and deliberate use of an OT text as an interpretational tool? Current scholarship continues to debate the role of authorial intent in the innerbiblical exegetical process.
One of the ancestors of the temple servants (Nethinim) who returned to Jerusalem after the Babylonian captivity under the leadership of Zerubbabel in 539 BC or soon after (Ezra 2:54; Neh. 7:56). The fact that many of the names in the list are foreign has led to the belief that they were originally prisoners of war who were pressed into service to perform menial tasks as they assisted the Levites.
A town, whose name means “garrison” or “post,” located in the Shephelah (lowlands) of Judah, mentioned only in Josh. 15:43 in a list of towns in Judah’s tribal allotment. It usually is identified with modern Khirbet Beit Nesib, approximately nine miles east of Lachish and seven miles northwest of Hebron.
The Hebrew name for the Elamite deity Ibnahaz. The Avvite deportees created an image of Nibhaz, along with another Elamite deity, Tartak, to worship in Samaria (2 Kings 17:31).
One of six towns in the Judean wilderness allotted to the tribe of Judah (Josh. 15:62). Nibshan may be identified with Khirbet al-Maqari, located approximately six miles southwest of Qumran.
One of the seven chosen to help distribute food to widows in the Jerusalem church (Acts 6:1–6). In extrabiblical literature “Nicanor” was also the name of a military leader fighting against Judas Maccabeus (2 Macc. 8) and of a governor of Cyprus (2 Macc. 12:2).
Nicodemus is mentioned by name five times in Scripture, only in the Gospel of John. He was a Pharisee and a member of the ruling council of the Jews (the Sanhedrin), and most of what we know about him comes from John 3. He came for discussion with Jesus at night, presumably to avoid being detected while having an amicable interaction with Jesus. Unlike his colleagues, Nicodemus recognized the authority of God in Jesus because of the miracles. Yet Nicodemus failed to understand the true nature of spiritual things (3:4–9) that Jesus subsequently explained to him (3:11–21). Jesus noted that since Nicodemus was a teacher in Israel, he should have understood such things (3:10).
Later, Nicodemus showed a sympathetic disposition toward Jesus when the rulers of the Pharisees aligned themselves against Jesus. Nicodemus noted that the law forbade condemnation before examination, and the other leaders reproached him for his defense of Jesus (John 7:50–52).
Then, after Jesus’ crucifixion, Nicodemus helped Joseph of Arimathea with the preparation and entombment of the body of Jesus (John 19:38–42). The testimony of Nicodemus prior to this time had been silent or less overt in front of the council, and this more overt act at the burial may testify to his conversion to discipleship of Jesus.
The Nicolaitans are mentioned exclusively in Rev. 2:6, 15. In the first text, Christ commends the Ephesian church for hating the practices of the Nicolaitans as he does. In the second text, Christ calls the church in Pergamum to repent for tolerating some among them who hold to Nicolaitan teaching. There, he compares the Nicolaitans to the Balaam/Balak group, which urged people toward the unholy combination of eating meat sacrificed to idols and sexual immorality. We know little else about this group. Some early church fathers linked it to the perversion of teachings by Nicolas (Acts 6:5), but this is unproven.
One of seven Hellenistic Jewish Christians chosen to distribute food to the poor Hellenistic widows of the Jerusalem church in order to free up the twelve apostles to continue their ministry of teaching the word of God (Acts 6:1–6; ESV, NRSV: “Nicolaus”). Nicolas was a proselyte (convert) to Judaism from Antioch. Like the other six, Nicolas was chosen because he was “full of faith and of the Holy Spirit.” Some church traditions identify Nicolas with the heretical sect of the Nicolaitans, referred to in Rev. 2:6, 15 (Irenaeus, Haer. 1.26.3; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.29.1–3). This connection is dubious, however, and may have arisen from the similarity of the names.
One of seven Hellenistic Jewish Christians chosen to distribute food to the poor Hellenistic widows of the Jerusalem church in order to free up the twelve apostles to continue their ministry of teaching the word of God (Acts 6:1–6; ESV, NRSV: “Nicolaus”). Nicolas was a proselyte (convert) to Judaism from Antioch. Like the other six, Nicolas was chosen because he was “full of faith and of the Holy Spirit.” Some church traditions identify Nicolas with the heretical sect of the Nicolaitans, referred to in Rev. 2:6, 15 (Irenaeus, Haer. 1.26.3; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.29.1–3). This connection is dubious, however, and may have arisen from the similarity of the names.
The name of at least nine cities in the entire Mediterranean region and beyond, one of which is Emmaus, near Jerusalem and Bethphage in Judea. There is one mention of a city named “Nicopolis” in Scripture, probably a reference to the Nicopolis on the western coast of Greece. Paul noted to Titus that he intended to winter in Nicopolis, and he asked Titus to visit him there (Titus 3:12).
The second name of Simeon, a church leader at Antioch (Acts 13:1). Literally translated from Latin as “black,” it probably means that Simeon was of North African descent and designated “Niger” for his dark skin. People of dark skin were a common sight particularly in the North African portions of the Roman Empire. His inclusion as one of the “prophets and teachers” of the Antiochian church indicates that the church had a multinational and multiethnic identity. Perhaps the conscious awareness of the nations coming together in worship of Christ motivated their encouragement of Paul’s continued missionary activities. Some scholars have suggested that this individual and the Simon of Cyrene mentioned in Mark 15:21 are the same person.
God created and named the darkness “night” (Gen. 1:5). OT writers associated night with aberrant behavior, fear, suffering, sorrow, and terror (Pss. 6:6; 30:5; 42:3; 77:2; 91:5), but they also knew that God worked throughout the night to deliver his people (Exod. 12:29–32; Deut. 16:1). Night is also associated with secrecy and danger, as seen in the Israelite exodus (Exod. 12:31) and the holy family’s flight to Egypt (Matt. 2:14). In OT times night was divided into three watches, but four in the NT Roman world. Night often was chosen to highlight divine activity (Matt. 2:12, 22; Acts 5:19; 12:6–7), but it also served to depict Judas’s betrayal of Jesus as a deed of spiritual darkness (John 13:30). Figuratively, night is used to refer to this present age (Rom. 13:12), and people of the world “belong to the night” (1 Thess. 5:5). There will be “no night” in the new heaven and earth (Rev. 21:25; 22:5).
In Isa. 34:14 the meaning of the Hebrew word lilit (NASB: “night monster”; NRSV: “Lilith”; ESV: “night bird”; KJV: “screech owl”) is uncertain. The LXX translates the Hebrew word with onokentauros, a sort of centaur, while the Vulgate has lamia (“witch”). It appears to be related to the Hebrew word for “night” but likely is drawn from ancient Near Eastern mythology, in which a lilith was a type of female demon, sometimes connected with sexual activity (hence Lilith’s portrayal in the Babylonian Talmud: Nid. 24b; B. Bat. 73a; Shabb. 151b; ‘Eruv. 100b). In later Jewish folklore, Lilith is depicted as Adam’s first wife, but outside of this text from Isaiah the name appears nowhere in the Bible.
In Isa. 34:14 the meaning of the Hebrew word lilit (NASB: “night monster”; NRSV: “Lilith”; ESV: “night bird”; KJV: “screech owl”) is uncertain. The LXX translates the Hebrew word with onokentauros, a sort of centaur, while the Vulgate has lamia (“witch”). It appears to be related to the Hebrew word for “night” but likely is drawn from ancient Near Eastern mythology, in which a lilith was a type of female demon, sometimes connected with sexual activity (hence Lilith’s portrayal in the Babylonian Talmud: Nid. 24b; B. Bat. 73a; Shabb. 151b; ‘Eruv. 100b). In later Jewish folklore, Lilith is depicted as Adam’s first wife, but outside of this text from Isaiah the name appears nowhere in the Bible.
For timekeeping, ancients divided the night into three (as in the OT) or four (as in the NT) “watches.” The NT mentions the second, third (Luke 12:38), and fourth (Matt. 14:25; Mark 6:48). The OT mentions watches (Pss. 63:6; 90:4; 119:148; Lam. 2:19), often in military contexts (Exod. 14:24; Judg. 7:19; 1 Sam. 11:11). The OT watches are not numbered but rather are referred to with terms such as “middle” or “last.” This system did not preclude the counting of hours during the night (Acts 23:23).
The Nile River is the lifeblood of Egypt and was pivotal for the life and culture of the ancient Egyptians. Annual flooding began during late June or August, inundating the land with water, bringing in nutrient-rich silts, and washing away salts from the soil. The annual flooding made the Nile Valley a fertile region, especially suited for growing cereal grains. The Nile floods also replenished the marshes, an important habitat for fish and birds and another important resource to the ancient Egyptians. Because of the meager annual rainfall in the region, agriculture was virtually impossible outside the Nile floodplains. Therefore, Egyptian settlement patterns tended to cling close to the river. However, fluctuations in the Nile’s flood levels could bring devastation. An unusually low flood would mean poor crop yields for the year, and an unusually high flood could destroy homes, livestock, and property. Such variations in flood levels are alluded to as the cause for the seven years of famine foreboded in the pharaoh’s dream in Gen. 41:1–4, 17–21.
The Nile is fed by three main tributaries. The Blue Nile and the Atbara originate in Ethiopia, while the White Nile carries its waters from Lake Victoria in northern Tanzania. All three rivers converge before the fifth of six cataracts, or rapids, along the Nile. These cataracts, numbered from north to south, acted as a natural barrier against hostile incursions from the south.
The Nile flows from south to north, but a prevailing wind along the Nile flows from north to south. These two factors mean that transportation north of the cataracts, where the Nile is calm for about 530 miles, was possible in both directions. Travelers could float without a sail, using the current to bring them northward (downstream), or ride the prevailing winds by use of the sail in order to travel southward (upstream). In Egyptian hieroglyphics, northward travel was illustrated via a symbol of a boat with a folded sail and a steering oar, while southward travel was shown as a boat with its sail unfurled.
To the ancient Egyptians, the Nile Valley was thought of as two halves. “Upper Egypt” referred to the part of the Nile south of the Nile Delta, while “Lower Egypt” referred to the Nile Delta itself. The ancient Egyptians oriented their world with regard to the Nile, not, as moderns do, by compass directions.
The Nile is mentioned frequently within the Bible, especially concerning Joseph and Moses, but also within the prophecies of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Amos, and Zechariah. Apart from the aforementioned reference in Gen. 41, the Nile is also referenced as the river into which Pharaoh ordered the Israelite infant boys be thrown, which led to Moses’ fortuitous float into the arms of Pharaoh’s daughter (Exod. 1:22; 2:3, 5–6, 10; Acts 7:22). Several plagues are also associated with the Nile (Exod. 4:9; 7:15–24; 8:3–11, 20; 17:5; Ps. 78:44–45). In 2 Kings 19:24 Sennacherib brags that he dried up the streams of Egypt. Prophetic references to the Nile occur in Isa. 7:18; 19:5–8; 23:3, 10; Jer. 46:7–8; Ezek. 29:3–10; Amos 7:8; 9:5; Zech. 10:11.
One of the towns constructed by the Gadites in the land given to them by Moses after they defeated the Amorites (Num. 32:3, 36; Josh. 13:27). It is located east of the Jordan Valley, and its name is present at Tell Nimrim. It may be associated with the “waters of Nimrim” (Isa. 15:6; Jer. 48:34).
Waters that become “dried up” in the oracles against Moab in Isa. 15:6; Jer. 48:34. The location of the waters would be east of the Dead Sea, in the land of Moab. One possibility may be the stream of Wadi en-Numeira to the southeast, at which lie the ruins of the ancient city Numeira. However, Nimrim may be linked to the name of Tell Nimrin, an ancient city northeast of the Dead Sea and one mile southwest of Beth-nimrah.
Nimrod is described in more detail than any other individual in the Table of Nations in Gen. 10. One of the sons of Cush, he was a warrior and proverbial as a “mighty hunter” (Gen. 10:8–9; 1 Chron. 1:10). He also founded eight cities in Babylonia and Assyria, regions that became Israel’s archenemies (Gen. 10:10–11). At the time of the exile, the Assyrians destroyed Israel, and the Babylonians destroyed Judah, but Micah promised redemption from Assyria and “the land of Nimrod” (Mic. 5:6).
Nimrod’s name probably comes from a Hebrew word meaning “to rebel.” Various attempts have been made to identify Nimrod with figures from other ancient Near Eastern sources, whether Mesopotamian (to maintain the Assyrian and Babylonian connection) or Egyptian (to maintain the connection with Cush and Africa). However, none of these is conclusive.
Apparently the grandfather of Jehu, the eleventh king of the northern kingdom of Israel. Jehu is called both “son of Nimshi” (1 Kings 19:16; 2 Kings 9:20) and “son of Jehoshaphat, the son of Nimshi” (2 Kings 9:2, 14). Perhaps Nimshi was better known than Jehoshaphat, making it easier to identify Jehu with his grandfather.
An Assyrian city near modern-day Mosul in Iraq, it is first mentioned in the Bible in Gen. 10:11–12. It became the capital of the Assyrian Empire during the reign of Sennacherib (705–681 BC). Because of Assyria’s threat during the late eighth and seventh centuries BC, Nineveh was the target of prophetic oracles that predicted its downfall (Nahum; Zeph. 2:13) and is the setting for the prophetic story of Jonah. The city was sacked and destroyed by the Medes and the Babylonians in 612 BC.
The inhabitants of the city of Nineveh. Their repentance in response to Jonah (Jon. 3:5) became emblematic of the proper response to Jesus’ preaching, and they are pictured at the final judgment as condemning the evil, sign-seeking generation of Jesus’ time (Matt. 12:39–42 // Luke 11:29–32).
The god of King Sennacherib of Assyria (r. 704–681 BC), in whose temple Sennacherib was assassinated by two of his sons (2 Kings 19:37; Isa. 37:38). No such deity appears in Assyrian sources, making Nisrok’s identity highly problematic, with suggestions including Ninurta, Enlil, and Nusku.
The god of King Sennacherib of Assyria (r. 704–681 BC), in whose temple Sennacherib was assassinated by two of his sons (2 Kings 19:37; Isa. 37:38). No such deity appears in Assyrian sources, making Nisrok’s identity highly problematic, with suggestions including Ninurta, Enlil, and Nusku.
A harsh alkaline mineral cleansing agent leached from wood ashes. In some Bible translations, lye is referred to metaphorically in conjunction with soap, a vegetable alkali mixed with oil, to emphasize the inadequacy of human effort to eradicate guilt before God (Job 9:3 [NIV: “cleansing powder”]; Jer. 2:22 [NIV: “soap”]) as opposed to God’s ability to cleanse and redeem sinners (Isa. 1:25 NASB).
The ancient name for the Egyptian city identified by the Greeks as “Thebes.” “No” means “city,” so the name means “City of [the god] Amon.” The full Hebrew name, “No-amon,” appears only at Nah. 3:8. Elsewhere the city is called “No” (Jer. 46:25; Ezek. 30:14–16). Most English versions translate the name as “Thebes” for all these occurrences, though at Nah. 3:8 the KJV has “populous No” (cf. NASB: “No-amon”; NKJV: “No Amon”).
Located on the Nile about four hundred miles south of the Mediterranean, Thebes rose to its greatest glory during the New Kingdom (1550–1070 BC) and the rise of Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty, which originated in Thebes. Magnificent royal tombs and temples were built throughout the city. After the death of Ramesses IX (c. 1070 BC), Thebes was no longer directly connected to the royal family, and its prominence diminished. A revival of the city’s prominence and considerable growth occurred during the Twenty-fifth Dynasty (760–656 BC), when Thebes was revered by the Amon-worshiping Sudanese kings of the Kushite Dynasty.
Thebes was sacked by the Assyrian army in 663 BC and suffered raids by the Persians in 525 and 343 BC. The prophets Jeremiah (46:25), Ezekiel (30:14–16), and Nahum (3:8) pronounced judgment against Thebes, a city that epitomized Egypt’s pride and defiance of God. See also Thebes.
The ancient name for the Egyptian city identified by the Greeks as “Thebes.” “No” means “city,” so the name means “City of [the god] Amon.” The full Hebrew name, “No-amon,” appears only at Nah. 3:8. Elsewhere the city is called “No” (Jer. 46:25; Ezek. 30:14–16). Most English versions translate the name as “Thebes” for all these occurrences, though at Nah. 3:8 the KJV has “populous No” (cf. NASB: “No-amon”; NKJV: “No Amon”).
Located on the Nile about four hundred miles south of the Mediterranean, Thebes rose to its greatest glory during the New Kingdom (1550–1070 BC) and the rise of Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty, which originated in Thebes. Magnificent royal tombs and temples were built throughout the city. After the death of Ramesses IX (c. 1070 BC), Thebes was no longer directly connected to the royal family, and its prominence diminished. A revival of the city’s prominence and considerable growth occurred during the Twenty-fifth Dynasty (760–656 BC), when Thebes was revered by the Amon-worshiping Sudanese kings of the Kushite Dynasty.
Thebes was sacked by the Assyrian army in 663 BC and suffered raids by the Persians in 525 and 343 BC. The prophets Jeremiah (46:25), Ezekiel (30:14–16), and Nahum (3:8) pronounced judgment against Thebes, a city that epitomized Egypt’s pride and defiance of God. See also Thebes.
(1) The son of Binnui, a Levite in Ezra’s time, he was one of those responsible for counting out the gifts for the temple at the return of the Israelites under Ezra (Ezra 8:33). (2) A prophetess, she was one of those who tried to intimidate and discourage Nehemiah in his rebuilding efforts in Jerusalem (Neh. 6:14).
(1) The eighth descendant listed in the line of Seth and the grandson of Methuselah, Noah was used by God to preserve the human race through the flood. His name means “rest,” chosen because his father, Lamech, believed that God would use his son to bring rest from the toil of life resulting from the fall (Gen. 5:29). Enoch was his great-grandfather, and like him, Noah is described as one who “walked faithfully with God” (Gen. 6:9; cf. 5:22, 24). He was the father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
His story is told mainly in Gen. 6–9. Because of its great wickedness, God resolved to destroy the human race. But Noah found grace in God’s sight, so God instructed him to build a large boat as directed and to take aboard provisions for his family as well as selected representatives of animal life. Noah dutifully obeyed, and his family thus was preserved through the ensuing catastrophe. From them the earth was repopulated (Gen. 10), and Noah was the recipient of various directives for the governance of the postdiluvian world, often referred to as the Noahic covenant (Gen. 9:1–17). Noah’s personal story ends with the curious episode of him getting drunk and subsequently cursing a son of Ham for some offense that Ham committed, the nature of which is described only as seeing “the nakedness of his father” (Gen. 9:22 ESV, NRSV, NASB). His age at the time of his death is given as 950.
Noah is mentioned two other times in the OT. God cites his promise that the “waters of Noah” never again would destroy the earth to affirm his covenant faithfulness to Israel (Isa. 54:9), and in another text groups Noah together with Job and Daniel as those who could deliver themselves by their righteousness, but not disobedient Israel (Ezek. 14:14, 20). In the NT, Jesus cites the conditions in Noah’s day as being representative of conditions at the time of his coming (Matt. 24:37–38; Luke 17:26–27). Peter mentions Noah twice, once to refer to the spirits of those who perished in the flood (1 Pet. 3:20) and once to use Noah as an example of God’s ability to deliver his people (2 Pet. 2:5). Hebrews 11:7 lists Noah as a hero of faith.
(2) One of the five daughters of Zelophehad. Their petition for a portion of their deceased father’s property helped set a precedent for inheritance law in ancient Israel (Num. 27:1–11; cf. Josh. 17:1–6). When it came time for the daughters of Zelophehad to marry, a further decree was issued that inherited land must not pass from tribe to tribe (Num. 36).
God announced to Noah that he was going to destroy all the inhabitants of the earth and commanded him to build an “ark” (Heb. tebah; Gen. 6:14–16). Apart from the Genesis flood narrative, Exod. 2:3–5 is the only other passage in the Bible where this word is used, there for the ark of bulrushes in which the infant Moses was placed. Both arks were made waterproof by a coating of pitch (tar). An ark is something built to save people from drowning. It is not the name of a kind of boat as such (e.g., yacht), but rather a geometric boxlike shape. The ark was without rudder, sail, or any navigational aid.
Noah was told to make it of “gopher wood” (Heb. goper), which the early Jewish Aramaic translations (Targumim) identified as cedar (NIV, NRSV, NET: “cypress wood”). The Hebrew word goper occurs only here in the Bible, but the Akkadian equivalent (kupru) is found at a similar point in the Epic of Gilgamesh. It was, then, the right kind of wood for a boat. The ark was to have “rooms”—that is, cubicles (lit., “nests”)—for the different animals to be housed in and kept apart from other animals.
After the general description of the ark (Gen. 6:14), details were provided by God on how to build it (6:15). Its length (300 cubits), width (50 cubits), and height (30 cubits) were specified. “Cubit” literally means “forearm” (the distance from elbow to tip of middle finger), so the ark was approximately 450 feet (140 meters) long, 75 feet (23 meters) wide, and 45 feet (13.5 meters) high (see NIV mg.). We cannot be exactly sure if “roof” (6:16) is the correct translation of the Hebrew word tsohar, which may refer to a hatchway or skylight (Vulg.: fenestra [“window”]; note the NIV 1984 mg.: “Make an opening for light”). Another possibility is “pitched roof.” The usual Hebrew word, gag, is not used because that refers to a flat roof (see Josh. 2:6, 8; 2 Sam. 11:2). The instruction to “finish it to a cubit above” (RSV) refers to the pitch of the roof or its overhang. The “window” (Heb. khallon) that Noah opens in Gen. 8:6 is probably to be equated with this skylight in the roof, not a window in the side (since Noah cannot see out). In Gen. 8:13 Noah removes the “covering” (Heb. mikseh) from the ark, so as to see the surface of the earth.
The ark was to have a door in its side, which was closed by God (Gen. 6:16; 7:16). The structure was also to have three decks, which suggests that the ark was viewed as a microcosmos, with its three levels matching sky, earth, and sea. Genesis 6:17 explains why an ark is needed. The destruction will be by means of water, and the ark will carry Noah and his family (eight persons), as well as at least one pair of every living creature. The NT refers to Noah’s construction of the ark (Heb. 11:7; 1 Pet. 3:20) and his entering it (Matt. 24:38; Luke 17:27).
A village located a little over a mile north of Jerusalem, home mainly to priestly families. David stopped there briefly while on his initial flight from Saul and received some assistance from the senior priest there, Ahimelek. Unfortunately, one of Saul’s herdsmen, Doeg the Edomite, observed this encounter and informed the king. Saul summoned Ahimelek’s family, and when Ahimelek acknowledged his actions, the king ordered the execution of the priests. His own Israelite servants declined to do this, however, so Doeg carried out the killings. One young priest, Abiathar, escaped and found refuge with David (1 Sam. 21–22).
(1) A descendant of Manasseh who conquered Kenath (Num. 32:42). (2) The city formerly named “Kenath” (modern Qanawat) named after its new conqueror (Num. 32:42). (3) A city located near Jogbehah, both of which were used as landmarks for indicating a nomadic route taken by Gideon (Judg. 8:11). This Nobah may be the same site as #2; otherwise, its identification is uncertain.
After killing Abel, Cain is banished to the land of Nod, the name of which creates a pun on nwd, the Hebrew verb for “wander” (Gen. 4:16). Nod is more a fate than a location (cf. 4:12, 14). Like Adam before him (3:24), Cain is denied the security of place and is exiled “east of Eden”—a phrase symbolizing banishment from God. Israel understood land eviction to be the most severe punishment (cf. Lev. 26:27–32). The LXX mistakenly translates the name as “Naid,” a corruption of Hebrew letters.
One of four people groups against which three Israelite tribes wage war in 1 Chron. 5:19. Nodab is a tribe in the north Transjordan that may be related to the Ishmaelite tribe of Abdeel. This war, which 1 Chronicles places during Saul’s reign, pits Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh against the Hagrites, Jetur, Naphish, and Nodab.
(1) The eighth descendant listed in the line of Seth and the grandson of Methuselah, Noah was used by God to preserve the human race through the flood. His name means “rest,” chosen because his father, Lamech, believed that God would use his son to bring rest from the toil of life resulting from the fall (Gen. 5:29). Enoch was his great-grandfather, and like him, Noah is described as one who “walked faithfully with God” (Gen. 6:9; cf. 5:22, 24). He was the father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
His story is told mainly in Gen. 6–9. Because of its great wickedness, God resolved to destroy the human race. But Noah found grace in God’s sight, so God instructed him to build a large boat as directed and to take aboard provisions for his family as well as selected representatives of animal life. Noah dutifully obeyed, and his family thus was preserved through the ensuing catastrophe. From them the earth was repopulated (Gen. 10), and Noah was the recipient of various directives for the governance of the postdiluvian world, often referred to as the Noahic covenant (Gen. 9:1–17). Noah’s personal story ends with the curious episode of him getting drunk and subsequently cursing a son of Ham for some offense that Ham committed, the nature of which is described only as seeing “the nakedness of his father” (Gen. 9:22 ESV, NRSV, NASB). His age at the time of his death is given as 950.
Noah is mentioned two other times in the OT. God cites his promise that the “waters of Noah” never again would destroy the earth to affirm his covenant faithfulness to Israel (Isa. 54:9), and in another text groups Noah together with Job and Daniel as those who could deliver themselves by their righteousness, but not disobedient Israel (Ezek. 14:14, 20). In the NT, Jesus cites the conditions in Noah’s day as being representative of conditions at the time of his coming (Matt. 24:37–38; Luke 17:26–27). Peter mentions Noah twice, once to refer to the spirits of those who perished in the flood (1 Pet. 3:20) and once to use Noah as an example of God’s ability to deliver his people (2 Pet. 2:5). Hebrews 11:7 lists Noah as a hero of faith.
(2) One of the five daughters of Zelophehad. Their petition for a portion of their deceased father’s property helped set a precedent for inheritance law in ancient Israel (Num. 27:1–11; cf. Josh. 17:1–6). When it came time for the daughters of Zelophehad to marry, a further decree was issued that inherited land must not pass from tribe to tribe (Num. 36).
A son of David born to an unnamed wife during the time he reigned from Jerusalem (1 Chron. 3:7; 14:6), though his absence from a similar and older list in 2 Sam. 5:13–16 raises questions of whether his name is the result of a textual mistake.
According to 1 Chron. 8:2, the fourth son of Benjamin, though his name is missing from a list of Benjamin’s sons in Gen. 46:21.
Descended from Ephraim, Nun was the father of Joshua, the successor of Moses (Exod. 33:11; Neh. 8:17).
The middle of the day (1 Kings 18:26–27; 20:16; 2 Kings 4:20; Neh. 8:3; Job 5:14; Ps. 55:17; Isa. 16:3; Jer. 6:4; 20:16; Amos 8:9; Acts 10:9; 22:6; 26:13), at which point the sun is at or near its meridian and the midday meal is eaten (Gen. 43:16). See also Midday.
A rope configured in a loop with a running knot that draws tighter as it is pulled. A sign of death, it is used for execution or as a snare (Job 18:10; Prov. 7:22).
The Hebrew name for Memphis, an important Egyptian city (Isa. 19:13; Jer. 2:16; 44:1; 46:14, 19; Ezek. 30:13, 16). See also Memphis.
A place included in a poem about the conquest of the Amorites by the Israelites in their travels on the eastern side of the Jordan (Num. 21:30). This site marked the boundary of the conquest. The location is certain to be in Moab, but exactly where is unknown. There is some discrepancy between the spellings of the name in different versions of the Hebrew Bible.
Geography
Whereas the principal direction in the modern world is north, in the ancient world different cultures used a variety of orientations as they sought to describe their relationship to their geographical environment. In Israel the primary direction was determined by the sunrise: east. This is reflected in Hebrew, where the main word used to refer to east as a direction was qedem, which could also be used to simply refer to that which was directly ahead or in front of the speaker (e.g., Ps. 139:5). Elsewhere, east is designated by the terms mizrakh (“rising” [Josh. 11:3]) or mizrakh hashamesh (“rising of the sun” [Num. 21:11]), both of which derive from the direction of sunrise. By way of contrast, in Egypt the primary direction was south, in alignment with the source of the Nile River.
The ancient world employed the same notion of four cardinal directions, which persists to the present, and the terminology related to these was influenced by the choice of primary direction. Thus, in Israel north is often designated by “left”; south could be designated by “right,” and west by “behind.” In addition, directions could be specified by reference to geographical features found in those directions. North could be specified by the word tsapon, which was derived from the name of a northern Syrian mountain (Zaphon); south by negeb, a name for the region south of Israel (Negev); and west by yam (“sea”), since the Mediterranean Sea lay to the west.
Symbolism
Aside from their purely geographical significance, the directions also came to bear figurative significance. Some caution is warranted in assigning symbolic significance to language, for there is danger of reading invalid meanings into texts. Furthermore, given the ambiguity inherent in the use of terms to refer to directions, which also have alternate significances, there is danger of assigning a symbolic meaning to the direction that actually resides in the alternate. So, for example, while yam (“sea”) carries significant symbolic overtones in the Bible, this association does not appear to have been extended to encompass the term when used to designate a westerly direction.
East and west. Nonetheless, there is, for example, probably some significance in the expulsion from Eden and progressive movement eastward to the tower of Babel through Gen. 1–11, followed by a return to the promised land, which was approached by reversing the easterly migration and returning toward Eden. Eden itself was said to lie “in the east” (Heb. miqqedem; Gen. 2:8), although the same Hebrew expression in Pss. 74:12; 77:5, 11; 78:2; 143:5 means “in ancient times,” and there is perhaps a deliberate ambiguity in the use of the expression in Gen. 2:8. In Isa. 2:6 the east is the source of influences on the people that lead them astray. Following the exile, Ezekiel sees the glory of God returning to the temple from the east (Ezek. 43:1–2). Thus, when used symbolically, “east” is often viewed negatively or else may be used to mark a connection with distant antiquity (Gen. 2:8; Job 1:3). Any symbolic significance assigned to west appears primarily to be associated with it being the antithesis of east. The distance between east and west was used poetically to express vast distance (Ps. 103:12).
North and south. North is significant for two primary reasons. First, it is the direction from which invading armies most often descended upon Israel (Jer. 1:13) as well as from which Babylon’s destruction is said to come (Jer. 50:3). In light of this, Ezekiel’s vision of God approaching from the north strikes an ominous tone of impending judgment (Ezek. 1:1–4). Second, in Canaanite mythology the abode of the gods, and specifically Baal, lay to the north, on Mount Zaphon. Thus, the king of Babylon’s plans in Isa. 14:13 amount to a claim to establish himself as one of the gods. In contrast to this, Ps. 48:2 pre-sents Mount Zion as supplanting Mount Zaphon and thus implicitly presents Israel’s one God as supplanting the Canaanite pantheon.
As with west, there is little symbolic significance associated with the direction south in the Bible, aside from its use in combination with other directions.
The four directions. The four directions (or sometimes just pairs of directions) are used together to describe both the scattering of the Israelites as well as their being gathered by God back to the promised land (Ps. 107:3; Isa. 43:5–6; Luke 13:29). They are also used together to express the extent of the promised land (Gen. 13:14) or else to describe something that is all-encompassing (1 Chron. 9:24).
A gate of the temple mentioned by Ezekiel in his vision of Jerusalem (Ezek. 8:3, 14; 40:20, 23, 35, 44; 44:4; 46:9; 47:2). It is part of the inner court of the temple precinct. This gate is also mentioned in 1 Chron. 26:14 in the list of temple gatekeepers.
In Acts 27:14 the KJV rendering of the Greek word Euroklydōn (the earliest manuscripts have Eurakylōn, and there are other variations), referring to the “northeaster” storm that resulted in the wreck of the ship transporting Paul to imprisonment in Rome. “Euroklydon” means “storm from the east,” while the preferred transliteration of the hybrid Greek-Latin word, “Euraquilo,” means “northeast wind.” According to Strabo (Geogr. 1.2.21), this was a violent wind from the north.
Mentioned only in the OT in most Bible versions (MSG uses “nose” in the NT as part of English idioms; e.g., Matt. 13:57; 21:32), the nose often is referred to in the context of jewelry, as nose rings for women were a fine adornment in ancient Hebrew culture (Gen. 24:47; Ezek. 16:12), in some cases indicative of extravagance (Isa. 3:16–24). Other times, a stronger party would direct a weaker party by means of a hook or a cord in their nose (2 Kings 19:28; 2 Chron. 33:11; Job 40:24).
The Hebrew word for nose, ’ap, could be used metaphorically for anger, much as English speakers might say that an angry person “has steam coming out of his nose.” Thus, the NIV’s “[he] became angry” can translate the Hebrew phrase “[his] nose burned” (Gen. 30:2; Judg. 10:7). The same Hebrew term can also refer to nostrils. The NIV uses the translation “nostrils” several times in the OT, often in poetry, usually in connection with breath (Gen. 2:7; 7:22; 2 Sam. 22:16 [cf. Ps. 18:15]; Job 27:3) or as a source of smoke (2 Sam. 22:9 [cf. Ps. 18:8]; Job 41:20).
The Hebrews also used ’ap to refer to the entire face, normally when a person was bowing facedown. In such instances, “bowed down with his face to the ground” translates the Hebrew phrase “bowed down with nostrils [’appayim] toward the ground” (Gen. 19:1; 1 Sam. 25:41).
Mentioned only in the OT in most Bible versions (MSG uses “nose” in the NT as part of English idioms; e.g., Matt. 13:57; 21:32), the nose often is referred to in the context of jewelry, as nose rings for women were a fine adornment in ancient Hebrew culture (Gen. 24:47; Ezek. 16:12), in some cases indicative of extravagance (Isa. 3:16–24). Other times, a stronger party would direct a weaker party by means of a hook or a cord in their nose (2 Kings 19:28; 2 Chron. 33:11; Job 40:24).
The Hebrew word for nose, ’ap, could be used metaphorically for anger, much as English speakers might say that an angry person “has steam coming out of his nose.” Thus, the NIV’s “[he] became angry” can translate the Hebrew phrase “[his] nose burned” (Gen. 30:2; Judg. 10:7). The same Hebrew term can also refer to nostrils. The NIV uses the translation “nostrils” several times in the OT, often in poetry, usually in connection with breath (Gen. 2:7; 7:22; 2 Sam. 22:16 [cf. Ps. 18:15]; Job 27:3) or as a source of smoke (2 Sam. 22:9 [cf. Ps. 18:8]; Job 41:20).
The Hebrews also used ’ap to refer to the entire face, normally when a person was bowing facedown. In such instances, “bowed down with his face to the ground” translates the Hebrew phrase “bowed down with nostrils [’appayim] toward the ground” (Gen. 19:1; 1 Sam. 25:41).
Although nuclear weapons are never spoken of as such in the Bible, the proliferation of such weapons after the Second World War—and especially during the Cold War era—led some biblical interpreters to speculate that their use is implicit in various prophetic passages, such as Ezek. 38–39; Mal. 4:1; Zech. 14:12; 2 Pet. 3:10; Rev. 8:7.
All numbers in the original languages of the Bible are written using words, not numerals. Neither the biblical Hebrew nor the Koine Greek writing system had distinct written numeral forms to represent numbers. Preexilic Hebrew inscriptions record numbers written either with words or in Egyptian hieratic number glyphs. During the exile, exposure to Aramaic resulted in the adoption of the Aramaic script to write Hebrew, but there are no clear indications that an Aramaic number system (as reflected in, e.g., the Elephantine inscriptions) was adopted. Hebrew later emulated Greek in assigning to the letters of the alphabet numerical values and so employing them to record numbers, although the practice of assigning numerical values to glyphs is also attested in pre-Hellenistic times. In Mesopotamia, for example, the practice of assigning numerical values to characters from their syllabic writing system seems to have existed at least as far back as the eighth century BC. The earliest evidence of this practice in Hebrew dates to no earlier than the middle of the second century BC, when it was used on Hasmonean coins.
The value and importance of numbers was widely recognized throughout the ancient world. Sophisticated mathematical texts are attested in both Mesopotamia and Egypt, although no such texts have been discovered originating in ancient Israel. The use of hieratic numbers in preexilic Israel suggests that mathematical knowledge may have been imported, particularly from Egypt. The Akkadian language adapted from Sumerian a hybrid sexagesimal number system, which used cuneiform symbols to represent numbers. Numbers were written in paired glyphs, one representing the values from 1 to 9, the second representing the multiples of 10 up to 50. For example, 59 was written by combining the glyph for 50 with that for 9. Larger numbers were then composed of sets of these paired glyphs. The impact of the sex-a-ges-i-mal system can still be seen in the division of hours and minutes into sixty parts. Most other Near Eastern cultures, including that of ancient Egypt and Israel, used a decimal system.
The decimal system was also used in the Greek-speaking world, and the Greek language, since before the NT era, had employed letters to represent numbers. The use of archaic letters that had otherwise disappeared from general usage by NT times gave the Greek alphabet twenty-seven letters, which provided the basis for representing ranges 1–9, 10–90, 100–900. Numbers were represented by adding letters together, so that the order of letters was unimportant.
When Hebrew started using letters to represent numbers, a similar scheme was adopted, although it necessarily stopped at 400 because the Hebrew alphabet has only twenty-two letters. For some, this suggests that Hebrew may have appropriated the system from Greek, but the same sequence of values in earlier counting indicates that the association of values 1–9, 10–90, 100–900 with the letters of the alphabet was itself not a Greek innovation.
Number Symbolism
Numbers often are used with symbolic significance in the Bible. Particularly prominent are the numbers 7 and 12, together with variations scaled by powers of 10. Other numbers occur frequently and also appear to have some symbolic significance, including 4, 40, and 1,000. A note of warning is pertinent, however, because there is a danger both of finding number symbolism where there is none and of overlooking the symbolic significance of numbers where it is appropriate.
Perhaps the most prominent symbolic association in the Bible occurs with the number seven. Broadly speaking, seven denotes completeness, perfection, or consummation. The number first appears in the creation account in association with the first Sabbath, in which it is tied to completion and rest. Linked to this are the working week, which concluded with a Sabbath, the sabbatical year for the land (Lev. 25:2–7), the duration of the major feasts over seven days (e.g., Passover [cf. Lev. 23:6, 34; Ezek. 45:21]), even the number of years Jacob worked for Leah and then Rachel (Gen. 29:15–30). God’s promise of comprehensive vengeance upon those who harm Cain is reflected in the use of seven (Gen. 4:15; cf. Pss. 12:6; 79:12; Prov. 6:31; Isa. 30:26). The idea that seven represents completeness can be seen in the seventy nations recorded in Gen. 10 and in the description of Yahweh as having seven eyes (Zech. 4:10). In the NT, the symbolic use of seven is expanded: it is used by Jesus in explaining unlimited forgiveness (Matt. 18:21–22) and most extensively by the author of Revelation, where reference is made to seven churches (1:4, 11, 20), spirits (1:4; 3:1; 5:6), golden lampstands (1:12; 2:1), stars (1:16; 2:1), seals (5:5; 6:1), eyes (5:6), angels (8:2, 6; 15:6, 7, 8; 16:1; 17:1; 21:9), trumpets (8:2, 6), thunderclaps (10:3, 4), crowns (12:3), heads (12:3; 13:1; 17:3, 7, 9), plagues (15:6, 8; 21:9), golden bowls (15:7; 16:1; 17:1), mountains (17:9), and kings (17:10).
Arising out of the observations relating to the symbolic use of the number seven are the manner in which its significance also applied to related numbers such as 7 × 7 = 49 (cf. Lev. 25:8–55) and 7 × 10 = 70 (cf. Exod. 24:1, 9; Jer. 25:12; 29:10; Dan. 9:2, 24; Luke 10:1–17).
The next most significant number with symbolic associations is twelve. In the OT, the primary association is with the tribes of Israel, and this association later develops to encompass God’s people in their entirety. It is likely that such an association is deliberately made in Jesus’ choice of twelve apostles.
The number ten is also associated with the practice of tithing, which was common throughout the ancient Near East. The number ten alone does not have a clear symbolic usage, although when a power of ten (e.g., 1,000 or 10,000) is used, these can represent any vast or unnumbered quantity (see “Large Numbers” below). Ten is also used in combination with other symbolic values to express the same symbolic notion emphatically; for example, 70 (7 × 10) or 77 (7 × 10 + 7) become emphatic affirmations of completeness, perfection, or consummation (e.g., Gen. 4:24; Matt. 18:22).
The number four appears to have some symbolic significance, perhaps due to the typical enumeration of the four cardinal directions, suggesting geographical or cosmological entirety (cf. Isa. 11:12; Jer. 49:36; Zech. 6:5). For example, four rivers leave Eden to water the entire land (Gen. 2:10–14).
The number forty appears frequently in association with long periods of endurance, such as Moses on the mountain (forty days [Exod. 24:18]), the time in the wilderness (forty years [Exod. 16:35]), Elijah’s journey to Horeb (forty days [1 Kings 19:8]), Jesus’ time in the wilderness (forty days/nights [Matt. 4:2; Mark 1:13; Luke 4:2]), and his time with his disciples following the resurrection (forty days [Acts 1:3]).
Large Numbers
Some scholars have argued that the large numbers in the OT present a particular problem in several places. Based on the figures in Num. 1, for example, there were 603,550 men of fighting age among those in the exodus, suggesting a total population of between one and three million (not counting livestock). Taken at face value, this number presents some difficulties: based on estimates of Egyptian population, it represents a very significant proportion of the entire population of that country; taken in conjunction with the number of firstborn recorded in Num. 3:43, it implies a very large average family size; it seems difficult to reconcile with the claim that the seven nations in the land of Canaan were greater than Israel (Deut. 4:38; 7:1; 9:1–2); and the logistics of moving that many people would pose significant problems.
However, if the observation made by Pharaoh in Exod. 1:9, that the Hebrews were more numerous than the Egyptians, was even approximately accurate, then a population of between one and two million would be appropriate. Nonetheless, various attempts have been made to mitigate the perceived difficulties by suggesting approaches that interpret the text in ways that result in significantly smaller population estimates for the Israelites.
The largest single-number word used in the OT is rebabah, which is used to represent large values greater than ten thousand but otherwise often lacks precision and is better understood to refer to a vast unnumbered multitude (e.g., Pss. 3:6; 91:7; Song 5:10). Similarly, the number one thousand can be used rhetorically without demanding mathematical precision (e.g., 2 Pet. 3:8, which should not be understood to provide a mathematical equation). It is this latter number that appears in the difficult passages in Numbers. The best solution to the problems lies in the meaning of the Hebrew term in question, ’elep (“thousand”). Several scholars have suggested that ’elep can also refer to a military unit or some other group (cf. Num. 1:16). Although the precise numbers in question are debated according to varying understandings of the sizes of the groups, the best solutions put the total number of Israelites in the exodus at around thirty thousand.
Gematria
Gematria is a system for calculating numerical values for words by assigning specific values to the letters of an alphabet. As noted above, the practice was used for legitimate numerical notation in Greek and, in some periods, in Hebrew. Letters were assigned values based on their order within the alphabet, the first nine letters assigned values 1–9, the next nine assigned values 10–90, and the subsequent letters assigned multiples of 100.
Although numerology of various forms, and in particular gematria, has formed the basis of many misguided attempts to discover hidden meanings within the biblical text, there appear to be explicit uses of gematria in Rev. 13:18 and, some suggest, in John 21:11. If the number 666 is an actual example of gematria, no consensus has been reached over the identity of the referent.
Most of the other supposed examples of gematria within the pages of the Bible are unconvincing, largely because the texts wherein such examples are found make good sense without resorting to obscure and uncertain interpretations, and partly because it runs counter to the notion that God speaks to make his will known (e.g., Deut. 29:29).
Descended from Ephraim, Nun was the father of Joshua, the successor of Moses (Exod. 33:11; Neh. 8:17).
The Latin title given to the psalm of praise recited by Simeon in Luke 2:29–32. The phrase comes from the Vulgate translation of 2:29 and means, literally, “now you are dismissing” (NIV: “you may now dismiss”), which is the first part of Simeon’s thanksgiving in seeing the “consolation of Israel” (2:25).
In biblical times, high-status mothers employed nurses to feed and care for children (Exod. 2:7; 2 Sam. 4:4; 2 Kings 11:2). In contrast, women of lower status nursed their own children (1 Sam. 1:23; 1 Kings 3:21). Rebekah’s nurse, Deborah, remained with her into adulthood (cf. Gen. 24:15). The dignity of her burial suggests that she was a beloved household member (Gen. 35:8). Naomi cared for the child of her daughter-in-law, though this did not necessarily involve breast-feeding the child (Ruth 4:16), since grandparents may have played a large role in child rearing. Isaiah plays on the social dimension of nursing and child care when he declares to Israel, “You will . . . be nursed at royal breasts,” reversing the expected roles (Isa. 60:16; cf. 49:23).
A type of training, generally referred to in the NIV as “discipline” (Prov. 3:11–12; 15:5; Heb. 12:5, 7, 10). For children, it encompasses the cultivation of the mind and morals, which includes essential corrections, reproofs, punishment, and restraint that exhibits godly character toward Christian growth (Eph. 6:4). For adults, Scripture has a role in this “training in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16). Even as earthly fathers discipline their children, God “disciplines the one he loves” (Heb. 12:6). Disciplinary sufferings are a demonstration of sonship (Heb. 12:5–11). Nurturing is also a type of care that can be shown to plants, akin to the proper care of children (Ps. 144:12).
A provincial and administrative center of the land known as Arraphe, during the late second millennium BC. The population of Nuzi seems to have been predominantly Hurrian, and the location was also ruled by the Mitanni for at least part of its existence. The site is located less than fifteen miles from modern-day Kirkuk in Iraq and is best known for the almost four thousand cuneiform tablets that have been unearthed there.
The texts unearthed at Nuzi come from administrative and family archives, among the most important of which is that of Apil-Sin (1767–1749 BC). They are written in a Hurrian-influenced dialect of Akkadian and convey a great deal of information about the social structure of Nuzi, especially its political, economic, legal, and military components. From them we learn that the king of Arraphe was a vassal of Mitanni, and that he stood at the top of a social ladder that included the queen and concubines, landowners, businessmen with military obligations, wealthier private citizens, governmental officials, and a relatively large class of property owners and slaves (including prisoners of war and private citizens who were forced to sell themselves into slavery because of their poverty; on occasion, these “slaves” seem to have been able to amass considerable personal fortunes in spite of their social standing). Women seem to have held a somewhat higher social standing at Nuzi than in other locations across the ancient Near East. They were able to engage in real-estate transactions and sometimes were extended significant protections in legal documents. Other significant legal and economic information comes from the so-called tablet of sonship, tablet of lease, and tablet of brothership. These tablets created important legal fictions aimed at the acquisition of land by adoption, transaction, or inheritance among otherwise unrelated citizens. Along with these, marriage contracts have also been discovered, providing additional valuable information about those practices. For example, marriage contracts indicate that marriages were legally arranged by fathers or brothers, dowries were paid to brides, and bride-prices were paid to the families. Moreover, they indicate that husbands sometimes were forbidden from taking a second wife, and that if subsequent wives were permitted, the original bride’s children remained the primary heirs of the husband.
Initially, the discovery of these texts generated a great deal of interest among biblical scholars because of the ways in which they seemed to confirm a number of different practices attested in the Hebrew Bible during the patriarchal period. Among these are the adoption of Eliezer of Damascus by the childless Abraham (Gen. 15:2), the series of negotiations over the marriage between Isaac and Rebekah (Gen. 24), and the practice of levirate marriage (book of Ruth). More recent research, however, has indicated that these customs are also clearly reflected throughout the ancient Near East during the second and first millennia BC, often with clearer parallels than the ones reflected at Nuzi. Thus, the evidence from Nuzi has not proved to be as clear-cut a case of direct influence as some had assumed. Nevertheless, it is not as if these subsequent findings have negated the apparent parallels with Nuzi, and a cautious reliance on the data as broadly suggestive of historical reliability is clearly the best course of action for the time being.
The host of a house church mentioned in Paul’s closing greetings in Colossians, along with “the brothers and sisters at Laodicea” (Col. 4:15). Since Paul names the household as Nympha’s, she most likely was a widow, but it is not impossible that she was single or married. Being the only one from her church personally addressed by Paul, she may have also been the head of her house church. The gender of Nympha has been debated, as some Greek manuscripts say that the house belongs to “her” (autēs), while others say that it is “his” (autou). However, the manuscript support for the feminine pronoun is generally considered better.