(1) A son of Cush and the father of Sheba and Dedan (Gen. 10:7; 1 Chron. 1:9). (2) Together with Sheba, an Arabian trading partner with Tyre for spices, precious stones, and jewels (Ezek. 27:22). Inscriptions found at Sheba indicate that Raamah was located at the site of the modern city of Negran in Yemen, though an ancient source has it at Regmah on the Persian Gulf.

A returned exile recorded in Nehemiah’s book of genealogy (Neh. 7:7). He is probably the same person called “Reelaiah” in Ezra 2:2.

The Egyptian city and region settled by Joseph and his family, “the best part of the land” (Gen. 47:11). This was later the point of departure for the Israelites leaving Egypt (Exod. 12:37; Num. 33:3, 5). It is also the name of one of the two store cities that the Israelites were forced to build in Egypt (Exod. 1:11).

The title of Nergal-sharezer, an official of the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar. The title apparently derives from the Akkadian rab-mūgi, a term of unknown meaning (rab means “chief” and appears in other Babylonian titles). Along with several other officers, the Rab-mag (NIV: “high official”) was responsible for administering the surrender of Jerusalem to the Babylonians and for releasing the prophet Jeremiah from Babylonian custody at the order of Nebuchadnezzar (Jer. 39:3, 13).

A high-ranking official associated with Assyrian and Babylonian courts. “Rab-saris” in Hebrew would mean “chief eunuch,” but this title probably is a transliteration of the Akkadian, meaning “one who stands by the king” (NIV: “chief officer”). The Rab-saris had significant political power, as indicated in the OT accounts.

A Rab-saris was sent with the Assyrian delegation to King Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:17), another was included with the Babylonian court in the gate of Jerusalem (Jer. 39:3), and a third helped with the release of Jeremiah from prison (Jer. 39:13). In Dan. 1 Ashpenaz, the Rab-saris at Nebuchadnezzar’s court (NIV: “chief of his court officials”), was responsible for bringing Daniel and his companions into the king’s palace and for assigning their Babylonian names.

(1) A city in the hill country of Judah (Josh. 15:60). (2) The capital city of the Ammonites, located about twenty-three miles east of the Jordan River at the site of the modern city of Amman. A wealthy city due to its prominent position on the major trade route from Arabia in the south to Damascus in the north, Rabbah was the site of the magnificent bed of King Og (Deut. 3:11). The city was comprised of two parts: the “city of waters” and the “royal city” (2 Sam. 12:26–27 KJV). Under the leadership of David, the Israelites took possession of Rabbah. It was during this siege that Uriah the Hittite was killed (2 Sam. 12:29–31). Soon after the division of the kingdom, Rabbah regained its independence. Both Jeremiah and Amos prophesied the destruction of Rabbah, but Jeremiah’s prophecy also includes a promise of its restoration (Jer. 49:2–6; Amos 1:13–15).

(1) A city in the hill country of Judah (Josh. 15:60). (2) The capital city of the Ammonites, located about twenty-three miles east of the Jordan River at the site of the modern city of Amman. A wealthy city due to its prominent position on the major trade route from Arabia in the south to Damascus in the north, Rabbah was the site of the magnificent bed of King Og (Deut. 3:11). The city was comprised of two parts: the “city of waters” and the “royal city” (2 Sam. 12:26–27 KJV). Under the leadership of David, the Israelites took possession of Rabbah. It was during this siege that Uriah the Hittite was killed (2 Sam. 12:29–31). Soon after the division of the kingdom, Rabbah regained its independence. Both Jeremiah and Amos prophesied the destruction of Rabbah, but Jeremiah’s prophecy also includes a promise of its restoration (Jer. 49:2–6; Amos 1:13–15).

A title applied to teachers and others in respected positions, literally meaning “my master.” By the NT era, the term was used in a more specific sense to refer to teachers of the Mosaic law.

In the NT, the title occurs only in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John, and it is most commonly used to address Jesus. In Mark’s Gospel the disciples three times address Jesus as “Rabbi” (Mark 9:5; 11:21; 14:45). In Matthew’s Gospel only Judas calls Jesus “Rabbi” and only in the context of betraying Jesus (Matt. 26:25, 49). The title is used more widely in John’s Gospel by individuals such as Nathanael and Nicodemus, as well as the group of disciples (John 1:38, 49; 3:2; 4:31; 6:25; 9:2; 11:8). The title conveys the respect of pupil for master and indicates the nature of the relationship that Jesus had with his followers.

Others were also called “Rabbi,” including John the Baptist and some of the Pharisees (John 3:26; Matt. 23:7). Although the Pharisees considered the title an honor, Jesus instructed his disciples not to allow themselves to be addressed as “Rabbi” and to acknowledge only one teacher, Christ (Matt. 23:8, 10). See also Rabboni.

Rabbits (or perhaps hares) are listed in the OT law as unclean animals that chew the cud but do not have cloven hooves (Lev. 11:6; Deut. 14:7). Rabbits do not actually chew the cud, but their food does pass twice through their digestive system, since they eat their droppings.

A city allocated to the tribe of Issachar in Josh. 19:20. This is probably the same town elsewhere known as Daberath (1 Chron. 6:72), located in the region of Mount Tabor.

An Aramaic form of the more commonly found title “rabbi,” meaning “my master” or “my teacher.” “Rabboni” is found just twice in the NT, and on both occasions it is used in direct address, referring to Jesus. In Mark 10:51 (NASB, NKJV) blind Bartimaeus uses the title when asking Jesus for his sight to be returned, and in John 20:16 Mary Magdalene uses it to greet Jesus upon recognizing him. It is possible that “rabboni” was a heightened form of address, conveying greater honor or a closer personal relationship than “rabbi.” See also Rabbi.

An Assyrian loanword in Hebrew, it designates one of the three officers sent by King Sennacherib of Assyria to King Hezekiah of Judah when the Assyrians invaded Jerusalem in 701 BC (2 Kings 18–20; cf. Isa. 36–37). Besides the other two officers—the Tartan (lit., “commander in chief”; NIV: “supreme commander”) and the Rab-saris (lit., “chief eunuch”; NIV: “chief officer”)—the Rabshakeh (lit., “chief cupbearer”; NIV: “field commander”), who could communicate effectively in the Judean language, openly challenged Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:23–25) and humiliated the people (18:27–37).

A term of abuse that probably derives from an Aramaic word meaning “empty” or “worthless” and has the sense of “fool” or “good-for-nothing.” In Matt. 5:22 Jesus condemns those who call their brother or sister “Raca,” comparing this verbal abuse with the act of murder.

A town in Judah that received a share in the plunder from David’s victory over the Amalekites (1 Sam. 30:29). In the LXX this town is called “Carmel.”

(1) A woman associated with the conquest whose history is recounted in Josh. 2. Two Israelite soldiers entered Jericho and headed straight for the nearest brothel (Josh. 2:1). There, they “lay down” (the literal meaning of shakab, which the NIV translates as “stayed there”) with Rahab. They were on a reconnaissance mission under Joshua’s command, as a precursor to invasion. The king of Jericho demanded that Rahab hand over the spies to him. She lied and sent the pursuers away on a false path, enabling the Israelites to escape. Her justification for this action was that she, and all of Canaan, knew that Israel’s God was with Israel and surely would destroy Jericho. She asked the spies to spare her family. This they promised to do if she would mark her window with a red cord, which she did.

These acts identified Rahab with Israel and Israel’s God, making her, as it were, a de facto Israelite. Thus, her works justified her to Joshua and saved her family (James 2:25). Although the citizens of Jericho believed in the coming judgment, only Rahab’s faith moved her to switch loyalties. Thus, her faith saved her (Heb. 11:31). The red cord in the window connects her story with Passover, where the angel of death passed over Israelite houses marked with lamb’s blood. Joshua’s forces passed over Rahab’s house, since it bore this mark. She is found in the genealogy of Jesus (Matt. 1:5).

(2) A mythological monster especially associated with the ocean that represented the natural forces of chaos in the world. Many scholars believe that Rahab is identical to the Canaanite Leviathan. In the OT Yahweh fights Rahab in the process of ending chaos and creating the world. Rahab is depicted as a poor opponent (Job 9:13; 26:12; Ps. 89:10; Isa. 51:9). Later, Egypt is sometimes equated with the monster Rahab (Ps. 87:4; Isa. 30:7), although there is no historic relationship between the two. The NKJV transliterates the Hebrew in Isa. 30:7 as though a proper name, Rahab-Hem-Shebeth, but most versions translate it with a phrase such as “Rahab the Do-Nothing” (NIV) or “Rahab who sits still” (ESV, NRSV).

A town in Judah that received a share in the plunder from David’s victory over the Amalekites (1 Sam. 30:29). In the LXX this town is called “Carmel.”

A daughter of Laban (Gen. 29:6); a wife of Jacob (29:28); mother of Joseph and Benjamin (35:24). Rachel is best known for her tumultuous relationship with her husband, Jacob, who, after meeting the beautiful shepherdess, agrees to work seven years for her father, Laban, in order to marry her. Jacob, however, receives Laban’s oldest daughter, Leah, on his wedding night and must serve Laban an additional seven years for Rachel. Genesis 29–30 records the tension between Jacob’s two wives as they engage in a childbearing competition for their husband’s love. Clearly the object of Jacob’s affection, Rachel bears only two of his twelve sons, Joseph and Benjamin. Outside Genesis, Rachel is mentioned in Ruth 4:11 and 1 Sam. 10:2, and in Jer. 31:15 and its NT quotation in Matt. 2:18.

Conflict along racial lines is a common theme in the Bible, arising from a variety of causes. A number of tribal conflicts continually resurface through the generations, such as that between the Israelites, who were descendants of Jacob, and the Edomites, who were descendants of Esau (2 Sam. 8:13; 2 Kings 8:21–22; Ps. 137:7). Subjection to foreign rule (in Egypt, in Babylon, and under Roman occupation in Judea) also inevitably brought the Israelite people into tension with their foreign rulers.

In the NT, racial tension exists between Jews and Samaritans, and between Jews and Gentiles. These problems of racial tension are resolved in the reconciling work of Christ (Eph. 2:13–16), since in Christ there is “neither Jew nor Gentile” (Gal. 3:28). The spread of the gospel across ethnic boundaries, as recorded in Acts, illustrates how racial differences no longer have any religious significance in the new covenant.

The fifth son of Jesse, he was one of David’s elder brothers (1 Chron. 2:14).

The cypress and cedar wood required for building Solomon’s temple was formed into rafts that could be transported by sea from Lebanon to Joppa (2 Chron. 2:16).

A descendant of Shem, the son of Peleg, the father of Serug, and an ancestor of Abraham and Jesus (Gen. 11:18–21; 1 Chron. 1:25; Luke 3:35).

(1) The son of Esau with his wife Basemath (Gen. 36:4, 10, 13, 17; 1 Chron. 1:35, 37). (2) The father or/and perhaps the grandfather of Zipporah, the wife of Moses, also known as Jethro (Exod. 2:18; Num. 10:29). (See also Jethro.) (3) An ancestor of Meshullam, a Benjamite who lived in Jerusalem during the postexilic period (1 Chron. 9:8). (4) The father of Eliasaph, a Gadite who was a leader at the time of Moses (Num. 2:14 [cited as “Deuel” in many manuscripts; cf. Num. 1:14]).

(1) A woman associated with the conquest whose history is recounted in Josh. 2. Two Israelite soldiers entered Jericho and headed straight for the nearest brothel (Josh. 2:1). There, they “lay down” (the literal meaning of shakab, which the NIV translates as “stayed there”) with Rahab. They were on a reconnaissance mission under Joshua’s command, as a precursor to invasion. The king of Jericho demanded that Rahab hand over the spies to him. She lied and sent the pursuers away on a false path, enabling the Israelites to escape. Her justification for this action was that she, and all of Canaan, knew that Israel’s God was with Israel and surely would destroy Jericho. She asked the spies to spare her family. This they promised to do if she would mark her window with a red cord, which she did.

These acts identified Rahab with Israel and Israel’s God, making her, as it were, a de facto Israelite. Thus, her works justified her to Joshua and saved her family (James 2:25). Although the citizens of Jericho believed in the coming judgment, only Rahab’s faith moved her to switch loyalties. Thus, her faith saved her (Heb. 11:31). The red cord in the window connects her story with Passover, where the angel of death passed over Israelite houses marked with lamb’s blood. Joshua’s forces passed over Rahab’s house, since it bore this mark. She is found in the genealogy of Jesus (Matt. 1:5).

(2) A mythological monster especially associated with the ocean that represented the natural forces of chaos in the world. Many scholars believe that Rahab is identical to the Canaanite Leviathan. In the OT Yahweh fights Rahab in the process of ending chaos and creating the world. Rahab is depicted as a poor opponent (Job 9:13; 26:12; Ps. 89:10; Isa. 51:9). Later, Egypt is sometimes equated with the monster Rahab (Ps. 87:4; Isa. 30:7), although there is no historic relationship between the two. The NKJV transliterates the Hebrew in Isa. 30:7 as though a proper name, Rahab-Hem-Shebeth, but most versions translate it with a phrase such as “Rahab the Do-Nothing” (NIV) or “Rahab who sits still” (ESV, NRSV).

(1) A woman associated with the conquest whose history is recounted in Josh. 2. Two Israelite soldiers entered Jericho and headed straight for the nearest brothel (Josh. 2:1). There, they “lay down” (the literal meaning of shakab, which the NIV translates as “stayed there”) with Rahab. They were on a reconnaissance mission under Joshua’s command, as a precursor to invasion. The king of Jericho demanded that Rahab hand over the spies to him. She lied and sent the pursuers away on a false path, enabling the Israelites to escape. Her justification for this action was that she, and all of Canaan, knew that Israel’s God was with Israel and surely would destroy Jericho. She asked the spies to spare her family. This they promised to do if she would mark her window with a red cord, which she did.

These acts identified Rahab with Israel and Israel’s God, making her, as it were, a de facto Israelite. Thus, her works justified her to Joshua and saved her family (James 2:25). Although the citizens of Jericho believed in the coming judgment, only Rahab’s faith moved her to switch loyalties. Thus, her faith saved her (Heb. 11:31). The red cord in the window connects her story with Passover, where the angel of death passed over Israelite houses marked with lamb’s blood. Joshua’s forces passed over Rahab’s house, since it bore this mark. She is found in the genealogy of Jesus (Matt. 1:5).

(2) A mythological monster especially associated with the ocean that represented the natural forces of chaos in the world. Many scholars believe that Rahab is identical to the Canaanite Leviathan. In the OT Yahweh fights Rahab in the process of ending chaos and creating the world. Rahab is depicted as a poor opponent (Job 9:13; 26:12; Ps. 89:10; Isa. 51:9). Later, Egypt is sometimes equated with the monster Rahab (Ps. 87:4; Isa. 30:7), although there is no historic relationship between the two. The NKJV transliterates the Hebrew in Isa. 30:7 as though a proper name, Rahab-Hem-Shebeth, but most versions translate it with a phrase such as “Rahab the Do-Nothing” (NIV) or “Rahab who sits still” (ESV, NRSV).

The son of Shema, a descendant of Caleb, in the tribe of Judah. Raham was the father of Jorkeam (1 Chron. 2:44).

A daughter of Laban (Gen. 29:6); a wife of Jacob (29:28); mother of Joseph and Benjamin (35:24). Rachel is best known for her tumultuous relationship with her husband, Jacob, who, after meeting the beautiful shepherdess, agrees to work seven years for her father, Laban, in order to marry her. Jacob, however, receives Laban’s oldest daughter, Leah, on his wedding night and must serve Laban an additional seven years for Rachel. Genesis 29–30 records the tension between Jacob’s two wives as they engage in a childbearing competition for their husband’s love. Clearly the object of Jacob’s affection, Rachel bears only two of his twelve sons, Joseph and Benjamin. Outside Genesis, Rachel is mentioned in Ruth 4:11 and 1 Sam. 10:2, and in Jer. 31:15 and its NT quotation in Matt. 2:18.

In the KJV, this term is used to describe a kind of verbal abuse, scolding, accusation, or derision (1 Sam. 25:14; 2 Chron. 32:17; Mark 15:29; Luke 23:39; 1 Cor. 5:11; 1 Tim. 6:4; 1 Pet. 3:9; 2 Pet. 2:11; Jude 9).

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

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

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

An optical phenomenon caused by the refraction of sunlight through raindrops or other water vapor. The great beauty of rainbows results from their containing the full spectrum of visible light. In Scripture rainbows have a special significance and symbolism. A rainbow is a sign of God’s covenant with the earth to never again destroy all life with a flood as he did in the time of Noah (Gen. 9:13–14, 16). The power of this particular image comes from the transformation of a bow—typically a symbol of warfare, destruction, and death—into a colorful symbol of heavenly mercy, grace, and peace. The rainbow thus became a sign of God’s kindness and mercy and is found in descriptions of God in the heavenly visions of both Ezekiel and John (Ezek. 1:28; Rev. 4:3; 10:1).

Raisins, or dried grapes, were among the foods forbidden to Nazirites (Num. 6:3). The reference to raisins in Song 2:5 indicates a belief in their aphrodisiac quality. Elsewhere, raisins frequently appear as a staple food, often pressed into cakes or patties that were easily transported (1 Sam. 25:18) and supplied quick energy (1 Sam. 30:12). Raisin cakes were also used as cultic offerings to other gods (Hos. 3:1).

Raisins, or dried grapes, were among the foods forbidden to Nazirites (Num. 6:3). The reference to raisins in Song 2:5 indicates a belief in their aphrodisiac quality. Elsewhere, raisins frequently appear as a staple food, often pressed into cakes or patties that were easily transported (1 Sam. 25:18) and supplied quick energy (1 Sam. 30:12). Raisin cakes were also used as cultic offerings to other gods (Hos. 3:1).

A town in Judah that received a share in the plunder from David’s victory over the Amalekites (1 Sam. 30:29). In the LXX this town is called “Carmel.”

A descendant of Manasseh in the third generation and one of the two sons of Peresh (1 Chron. 7:16; GW, NCV identify his father as Peresh’s brother, Sheresh; in the Hebrew and many English versions the text is ambiguous). In the NRSV, the name appears as “Rekem.”

A fortified city allocated to the tribe of Naphtali (Josh. 19:35). Rakkath was traditionally thought to lie on the site of Tiberias, but it is more likely to have been a couple of miles farther north at the site of Khirbet el-Quneitireh, near the west shore of the Sea of Galilee.

A city allocated to the tribe of Dan (Josh. 19:46). The most likely location for the city of Rakkon is at Tell er-Reqqeit, six miles north of Joppa and not far from the mouth of the River Jarkon on the Mediterranean coast.

(1) A son of Hezron and the father of Amminadab, he was an ancestor of David (Ruth 4:19; 1 Chron. 2:9–10) and is mentioned in Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus (Matt. 1:3–4). (2) The firstborn son of Hezron’s son Jerahmeel (1 Chron. 2:25). His uncle is the Ram of 1 Chron. 2:9–10. (3) Head of the family of Elihu, the young man who angrily contends with Job and his three friends (Job 32:2).

An instrument made out of an animal’s horn (most commonly a ram) that had at most three notes. The Hebrew word, shopar, most often is translated as “trumpet” or “horn.” It had many uses and was most often used to signal troops during times of war (Josh. 6:4; Judg. 3:27) and to gather people for religious or civic ceremonies (Exod. 19:13; 2 Sam. 15:10). It also has eschatological connotations in relationship to the day of the Lord (Joel 2:1).

This Hebrew word, indicating a “high place,” is used as the name for several sites in ancient Israel. (1) A town in Benjamin (Josh. 18:25), possibly located on the site of the modern city of Er-Ram, five miles north of Jerusalem, or three miles farther north at Ramallah. Ramah was located near the cities of Gibeon and Mizpah and close to the eventual border between Israel and Judah. It was a resting place on the road to the north (Judg. 19:13). The judge Deborah held court near Ramah on the road to Bethel (Judg. 4:5).

When King Baasha of Israel invaded Judah, he made Ramah his base, fortifying the city in order to control northern access to Jerusalem (1 Kings 15:17). After Baasha was forced to abandon his position, King Asa of Judah dismantled the fortifications and used the materials to strengthen the cities of Geba and Mizpah (15:22). Following the return from exile, some of the Benjamites resettled in the city of Ramah (Neh. 11:33). Rachel’s tomb was said to be near Ramah, and the place is associated with her mourning for her children in Jeremiah’s prophecy (Jer. 31:15). Some scholars believe that Ramah of Benjamin was also the birthplace of Samuel (see #2).

(2) The birthplace and burial site of Samuel (1 Sam. 1:19; 25:1), also known as Ramathaim, or possibly Ramathaim Zuphim (1:1 NIV mg.), situated in the hill country of Ephraim. Ramah was Samuel’s home throughout his time as judge over Israel, and he built an altar to God there (7:17). It was at Ramah that the Israelite elders came to Samuel to demand a king (8:4–5). Later, when David fled from Saul’s house, he went to Ramah to take counsel from Samuel and find refuge from the king.

The location of Ramah is uncertain. The difficulty with identifying it as Ramah of Benjamin (see above) is the link with the territory of Ephraim (1 Sam. 1:1), though both Er-Ram and Ramallah are possible sites. Another suggested location is Beit Ramah, which is in the mountains of Ephraim, about eleven miles northwest of Bethel, though the distance from Saul’s home in Gibeah (sixteen miles) casts some doubt on this (see 9:1–6).

(3) A town on the boundary of Asher (Josh. 19:29). (4) A walled town in Naphtali (Josh. 19:36). (5) A town of Simeon (Josh. 19:8; 1 Sam. 30:27). (6) An alternative name for Ramoth-Gilead (2 Kings 8:28–29; 2 Chron. 22:5–6).

Another form of “Ramah” (indicating a “hill” or “high place”), used in three place names in the OT. (1) Ramath Lehi (“hill of the jawbone”) is the place where Samson defeated a thousand Philistines, striking them with the jawbone of a donkey (Judg. 15:17). (2) Ramath Mizpah was a town allocated to the tribe of Gad (Josh. 13:26), located between Heshbon and Betonim. (3) Ramath Negev was a town given to the Simeonites within the tribal allotment of Judah (Josh. 19:8).

Another form of “Ramah” (indicating a “hill” or “high place”), used in three place names in the OT. (1) Ramath Lehi (“hill of the jawbone”) is the place where Samson defeated a thousand Philistines, striking them with the jawbone of a donkey (Judg. 15:17). (2) Ramath Mizpah was a town allocated to the tribe of Gad (Josh. 13:26), located between Heshbon and Betonim. (3) Ramath Negev was a town given to the Simeonites within the tribal allotment of Judah (Josh. 19:8).

Another form of “Ramah” (indicating a “hill” or “high place”), used in three place names in the OT. (1) Ramath Lehi (“hill of the jawbone”) is the place where Samson defeated a thousand Philistines, striking them with the jawbone of a donkey (Judg. 15:17). (2) Ramath Mizpah was a town allocated to the tribe of Gad (Josh. 13:26), located between Heshbon and Betonim. (3) Ramath Negev was a town given to the Simeonites within the tribal allotment of Judah (Josh. 19:8).

This Hebrew word, indicating a “high place,” is used as the name for several sites in ancient Israel. (1) A town in Benjamin (Josh. 18:25), possibly located on the site of the modern city of Er-Ram, five miles north of Jerusalem, or three miles farther north at Ramallah. Ramah was located near the cities of Gibeon and Mizpah and close to the eventual border between Israel and Judah. It was a resting place on the road to the north (Judg. 19:13). The judge Deborah held court near Ramah on the road to Bethel (Judg. 4:5).

When King Baasha of Israel invaded Judah, he made Ramah his base, fortifying the city in order to control northern access to Jerusalem (1 Kings 15:17). After Baasha was forced to abandon his position, King Asa of Judah dismantled the fortifications and used the materials to strengthen the cities of Geba and Mizpah (15:22). Following the return from exile, some of the Benjamites resettled in the city of Ramah (Neh. 11:33). Rachel’s tomb was said to be near Ramah, and the place is associated with her mourning for her children in Jeremiah’s prophecy (Jer. 31:15). Some scholars believe that Ramah of Benjamin was also the birthplace of Samuel (see #2).

(2) The birthplace and burial site of Samuel (1 Sam. 1:19; 25:1), also known as Ramathaim, or possibly Ramathaim Zuphim (1:1 NIV mg.), situated in the hill country of Ephraim. Ramah was Samuel’s home throughout his time as judge over Israel, and he built an altar to God there (7:17). It was at Ramah that the Israelite elders came to Samuel to demand a king (8:4–5). Later, when David fled from Saul’s house, he went to Ramah to take counsel from Samuel and find refuge from the king.

The location of Ramah is uncertain. The difficulty with identifying it as Ramah of Benjamin (see above) is the link with the territory of Ephraim (1 Sam. 1:1), though both Er-Ram and Ramallah are possible sites. Another suggested location is Beit Ramah, which is in the mountains of Ephraim, about eleven miles northwest of Bethel, though the distance from Saul’s home in Gibeah (sixteen miles) casts some doubt on this (see 9:1–6).

(3) A town on the boundary of Asher (Josh. 19:29). (4) A walled town in Naphtali (Josh. 19:36). (5) A town of Simeon (Josh. 19:8; 1 Sam. 30:27). (6) An alternative name for Ramoth-Gilead (2 Kings 8:28–29; 2 Chron. 22:5–6).

This Hebrew word, indicating a “high place,” is used as the name for several sites in ancient Israel. (1) A town in Benjamin (Josh. 18:25), possibly located on the site of the modern city of Er-Ram, five miles north of Jerusalem, or three miles farther north at Ramallah. Ramah was located near the cities of Gibeon and Mizpah and close to the eventual border between Israel and Judah. It was a resting place on the road to the north (Judg. 19:13). The judge Deborah held court near Ramah on the road to Bethel (Judg. 4:5).

When King Baasha of Israel invaded Judah, he made Ramah his base, fortifying the city in order to control northern access to Jerusalem (1 Kings 15:17). After Baasha was forced to abandon his position, King Asa of Judah dismantled the fortifications and used the materials to strengthen the cities of Geba and Mizpah (15:22). Following the return from exile, some of the Benjamites resettled in the city of Ramah (Neh. 11:33). Rachel’s tomb was said to be near Ramah, and the place is associated with her mourning for her children in Jeremiah’s prophecy (Jer. 31:15). Some scholars believe that Ramah of Benjamin was also the birthplace of Samuel (see #2).

(2) The birthplace and burial site of Samuel (1 Sam. 1:19; 25:1), also known as Ramathaim, or possibly Ramathaim Zuphim (1:1 NIV mg.), situated in the hill country of Ephraim. Ramah was Samuel’s home throughout his time as judge over Israel, and he built an altar to God there (7:17). It was at Ramah that the Israelite elders came to Samuel to demand a king (8:4–5). Later, when David fled from Saul’s house, he went to Ramah to take counsel from Samuel and find refuge from the king.

The location of Ramah is uncertain. The difficulty with identifying it as Ramah of Benjamin (see above) is the link with the territory of Ephraim (1 Sam. 1:1), though both Er-Ram and Ramallah are possible sites. Another suggested location is Beit Ramah, which is in the mountains of Ephraim, about eleven miles northwest of Bethel, though the distance from Saul’s home in Gibeah (sixteen miles) casts some doubt on this (see 9:1–6).

(3) A town on the boundary of Asher (Josh. 19:29). (4) A walled town in Naphtali (Josh. 19:36). (5) A town of Simeon (Josh. 19:8; 1 Sam. 30:27). (6) An alternative name for Ramoth-Gilead (2 Kings 8:28–29; 2 Chron. 22:5–6).

Another form of “Ramah” (indicating a “hill” or “high place”), used in three place names in the OT. (1) Ramath Lehi (“hill of the jawbone”) is the place where Samson defeated a thousand Philistines, striking them with the jawbone of a donkey (Judg. 15:17). (2) Ramath Mizpah was a town allocated to the tribe of Gad (Josh. 13:26), located between Heshbon and Betonim. (3) Ramath Negev was a town given to the Simeonites within the tribal allotment of Judah (Josh. 19:8).

The home of Samuel’s parents in the hill country of Ephraim (1 Sam. 1:1), though it is also called “Ramah” (1 Sam. 1:19). It may be modern Rentis (Arimathea in the NT [Matt. 27:57]), about eighteen miles east of Joppa.

The home of Samuel’s parents in the hill country of Ephraim (1 Sam. 1:1), though it is also called “Ramah” (1 Sam. 1:19). It may be modern Rentis (Arimathea in the NT [Matt. 27:57]), about eighteen miles east of Joppa.

A native of one of the towns called “Ramah.” Shimei the Ramathite was responsible for overseeing David’s vineyards (1 Chron. 27:27).

The Egyptian city and region settled by Joseph and his family, “the best part of the land” (Gen. 47:11). This was later the point of departure for the Israelites leaving Egypt (Exod. 12:37; Num. 33:3, 5). It is also the name of one of the two store cities that the Israelites were forced to build in Egypt (Exod. 1:11).

A son of Parosh, he was one of the Israelites who married foreign women during the time of the exile (Ezra 10:25).

A town in the tribal allotment of Issachar (Josh. 19:21), probably the same as Ramoth (1 Chron. 6:73) and Jarmuth (Josh. 21:29).

A city of refuge located in the Transjordan territory of Gad (Deut. 4:43; Josh. 20:8; 21:38). King Ahab of Israel invited King Jehoshaphat of Judah to ally with him to retake Ramoth Gilead from the Arameans. In the ensuing battle Ahab was fatally wounded (1 Kings 22; 2 Chron. 18). After Ahab’s son Joram was injured at Ramoth Gilead, Elisha’s representative traveled there to anoint Jehu as king of Israel (2 Kings 8:25–9:13). Ramoth Gilead is commonly identified with Tell er-Rumeith, a small fortification about three miles south of Ramtha in northern Jordan, near the Syrian border.

This Hebrew word, indicating a “high place,” is used as the name for several sites in ancient Israel. (1) A town in Benjamin (Josh. 18:25), possibly located on the site of the modern city of Er-Ram, five miles north of Jerusalem, or three miles farther north at Ramallah. Ramah was located near the cities of Gibeon and Mizpah and close to the eventual border between Israel and Judah. It was a resting place on the road to the north (Judg. 19:13). The judge Deborah held court near Ramah on the road to Bethel (Judg. 4:5).

When King Baasha of Israel invaded Judah, he made Ramah his base, fortifying the city in order to control northern access to Jerusalem (1 Kings 15:17). After Baasha was forced to abandon his position, King Asa of Judah dismantled the fortifications and used the materials to strengthen the cities of Geba and Mizpah (15:22). Following the return from exile, some of the Benjamites resettled in the city of Ramah (Neh. 11:33). Rachel’s tomb was said to be near Ramah, and the place is associated with her mourning for her children in Jeremiah’s prophecy (Jer. 31:15). Some scholars believe that Ramah of Benjamin was also the birthplace of Samuel (see #2).

(2) The birthplace and burial site of Samuel (1 Sam. 1:19; 25:1), also known as Ramathaim, or possibly Ramathaim Zuphim (1:1 NIV mg.), situated in the hill country of Ephraim. Ramah was Samuel’s home throughout his time as judge over Israel, and he built an altar to God there (7:17). It was at Ramah that the Israelite elders came to Samuel to demand a king (8:4–5). Later, when David fled from Saul’s house, he went to Ramah to take counsel from Samuel and find refuge from the king.

The location of Ramah is uncertain. The difficulty with identifying it as Ramah of Benjamin (see above) is the link with the territory of Ephraim (1 Sam. 1:1), though both Er-Ram and Ramallah are possible sites. Another suggested location is Beit Ramah, which is in the mountains of Ephraim, about eleven miles northwest of Bethel, though the distance from Saul’s home in Gibeah (sixteen miles) casts some doubt on this (see 9:1–6).

(3) A town on the boundary of Asher (Josh. 19:29). (4) A walled town in Naphtali (Josh. 19:36). (5) A town of Simeon (Josh. 19:8; 1 Sam. 30:27). (6) An alternative name for Ramoth-Gilead (2 Kings 8:28–29; 2 Chron. 22:5–6).

Ramparts formed an important part of the fortification of ancient Israelite cities as the outer ring of defense. The Hebrew term khel could indicate moats, stone walls, or earthen ramparts encircling a city. In poetic descriptions of Zion the security of the city is indicated by its ramparts (Isa. 26:1).

In 2 Kings 11:8, 15; 2 Chron. 23:14 the KJV translates the Hebrew word sederah as “range,” referring to a formation of soldiers.

A payment made to redeem a slave, release a captive, or free a criminal from punishment.

In the OT, slaves could be set free by ransom (Lev. 19:20), and certain kinds of criminals are excluded from ransom (Num. 35:31–32), implying that others could be ransomed to escape their punishment. Ransom is also used more broadly to include notions of atonement (Exod. 30:12) and as a near synonym for “redemption” (Jer. 31:11 NASB, NRSV, KJV). “Ransom” is frequently used metaphorically to describe God’s saving actions on behalf of the nation (Isa. 43:3; 50:2; Jer. 31:11; Hos. 13:14), saving them from their enemies, or of individuals (Job 5:20; Ps. 55:18), saving them from death. In these cases, the emphasis is on the rescue effected, not the price paid.

In the NT, “ransom” is used to describe the atoning work of Christ. Jesus describes his own purpose: “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 // Matt. 20:28). Paul uses the same language: “Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people” (1 Tim. 2:5–6). The author of Hebrews describes the effect of this ransom: “He has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant” (Heb. 9:15). All three references indicate that the price paid for the ransom is Jesus’ life, given up to death on the cross. Each of the literal meanings of “ransom” has its metaphorical equivalent: Christ’s death frees us from our slavery to sin and death (Rom. 6:6), releases us from our captivity to the law (7:4–6), and pays the price of the punishment that our sins deserved (3:25–26). The ransom was not paid to the devil, and it is best understood as the satisfaction of God’s own justice (Rom. 6:23).

Nonconsensual sexual intercourse imposed on a person by force or trickery. The rape of a betrothed woman was considered a capital offense under OT law (Deut. 22:25–27), and a woman who had been the victim of this crime was not dishonored by it. A man who raped an unattached woman was required to pay her bride-price and marry her in order to preserve her honor. Such a man was not permitted to later divorce his wife.

The OT contains a number of stories describing rape and its consequences. In two instances, women compel men to sleep with them by trickery and deception. In order to preserve their family line, Lot’s daughters persuaded their father to have sex with them by making him drunk (Gen. 19:30–35). For a similar reason, Tamar tricked her father-in-law, Judah, into thinking that she was a prostitute so that he would fulfill his family duty to give her a son.

More commonly, men perpetrated sexual violence against women to satisfy their own lust. Sometimes this was lust for an individual woman, as in the cases of Shechem (Gen. 34) and Amnon (2 Sam. 13:1–22). In other instances, it is clear that any woman would satisfy the violent sexual urges of the men involved (Judg. 19; similarly, Gen. 19:4–5). In many of these cases, the crimes committed have serious and long-lasting consequences beyond their immediate circumstances. The rape of the women of Jerusalem was one of the horrors associated with the fall of the city (Lam. 5:11; Zech. 14:2).

(1) The fifth son of Benjamin (1 Chron. 8:2), omitted from the list in Gen. 46:21. (2) Either the ancestor of several of David’s Philistine enemies (2 Sam. 21:15–22; 1 Chron. 20:4–8) or possibly a description of their race, indicating their gigantic size.

A descendant of Saul, he was the son of Binea and the father of Eleasah (1 Chron. 8:37). An alternate version of the name, “Rephaiah,” is found in 1 Chron. 9:43.

The father of Palti, the Benjamite who was selected as one of the twelve Israelite spies to reconnoiter the land of Canaan (Num. 13:9).

The word “rapture” (from Lat. raptura) describes Christians being “caught up” to meet the Lord at the second coming (1 Thess. 4:17). This seems to immediately follow the resurrection of the dead. Paul claims those who have “fallen asleep” will rise first (4:15), then the living will be caught up with them in the clouds and meet the Lord in the air.

Futurists disagree as to the timing of the rapture. Pretribulationists hold that the rapture happens before the great tribulation begins, sparing the church the trauma of that period. Midtribulationists place it at the midpoint of the tribulation. Both of these views see a two-part second coming: first, Christ returns secretly to remove his church; then, he returns visibly at the end of the tribulation. Posttribulationists see the church remaining throughout the entire period, protected from the wrath of God but experiencing intense persecution from the world.

In 1928 a Syrian peasant farmer stumbled by chance onto a funerary vault of ancient provenance about half a mile from the Mediterranean coastline of Syria and about six miles north of the modern-day city of Latakia. This unforeseen discovery led to an archaeological excavation of Tell Ras Shamra (Cape Fennel) by the eminent French excavator Claude Schaeffer. What Schaeffer’s team unearthed was not merely an ancient tomb, but a city complete with palaces, private homes, temples, and streets paved with stone.

Within the first year of excavation, the ruins of Ugarit yielded a cache of clay tablets bearing a cuneiform script in a language hitherto unknown. From these mysterious texts scholars deciphered an alphabetic script written in a West Semitic language related to Canaanite, Arabic, and biblical Hebrew.

The Kingdom of Ugarit

The site of the ancient city of Ugarit, Tell Ras Shamra, is enclosed by two small rivers that flow westward into the Mediterranean Sea. The presence of water ensured the fertility of the surrounding plain; thus a good crop of cereals, grapes, and olives was available to supplement the fishing industry as a local supply of food. The kingdom encompassed about twelve hundred square miles, bounded by the natural geography of the region. To the west of the site lies the Mediterranean, with a port that supplied an important route for international trade. To the south, the east, and the north are mountain ranges, including Mount Zaphon, whose majesty is recorded in Isa. 14:13. Indeed, the name “Zaphon” becomes simply a general word for “north” in biblical Hebrew.

The site of Tell Ras Shamra was occupied as far back as Neolithic times (seventh millennium BC), yet the kingdom of Ugarit properly dates to the second millennium BC. The time of Ugarit’s greatest flourishing was the period just prior to its destruction: from the fourteenth to the twelfth centuries BC, during the Late Bronze Age. The prosperity of the kingdom reached its height during this period. Ugarit’s coastal access and strategic location as a central hub within the matrix of Late Bronze Age superpowers made Ugarit an important focal point for international trade routes, both maritime and overland. Late Bronze Age Ugaritic society was diverse and cosmopolitan, a feature perhaps best epitomized by its scribal training center, in which tablets bearing inscriptions in several different languages have been discovered.

Around 1200 BC, in approximately the same time frame as the exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt, Ugarit met an untimely demise. (Note that some biblical scholars date the exodus from Egypt during the fifteenth century BC rather than the thirteenth.) Royal documents from the Egyptian and Hittite kingdoms, as well as one from Ugarit, record a concern over a group of invaders known as the Sea Peoples. The Sea Peoples likely originated in the northwest, leaving their mark on the coasts of Turkey, Cyprus, and the Levant. The descendants of the invading Sea Peoples remained on the coast of Palestine, and the biblical text refers to them as the Philistines. The destruction of Ugarit is attributed to these invaders from the sea. The archaeological remains of Tell Ras Shamra show that many homes were abandoned as invaders set the city on fire. Ugarit burned to the ground sometime between 1190 and 1185 BC.

The Texts of Ugarit

More than fifteen hundred Ugaritic texts have been discovered since excavations began at Tell Ras Shamra. The texts are written on tablets with wedgelike markings impressed into the clay by scribes using a triangular-shaped reed stylus. The majority of the texts of Ugarit were found in and around the remains of the royal palace grounds and temples, but some were found in the homes of high-ranking palace administrators and businessmen. The subject matter of these texts is diverse, and the various genres of written material from Ugarit include official letters, administrative and economic texts, scribal training texts, and religious and literary texts. The cosmopolitan character of Ugarit is also reflected in its texts. Among the various tablets discovered, many were written in Akkadian, which was the lingua franca of the Late Bronze Age in this region. Still other texts were written in various ancient Near Eastern languages; Hurrian, Hittite, and Cypro-Minoan, and Egyptian hieroglyphs were found inscribed into some artifacts, as well as upon cylinder seals.

Letters. The letter documents of Ugarit are formal in style with scripted introductions and closings, like most royal letters from the ancient Near East. Two notable examples may be pointed out. The first is a letter from the king of Tyre in Phoenicia (for Iron Age references to the city of Tyre, see Josh. 19:29; 2 Sam. 5:11; Ezek. 28) to the king of Ugarit. The occasion of the letter is the shipwreck of a Ugaritic trade vessel bound for Egypt that crashed on the coastline of Phoenicia after a violent storm. The king of Tyre writes that none of the ship’s crew survived, and its cargo was lost at sea. A second epistolary example is a letter written by the king of Carchemish in the Hittite Empire (see Isa. 10:9; Jer. 46:2) to the last king of Ugarit, Ammurapi. The occasion of this epistle is the Hittite king’s perceived mistreatment of his daughter who was married to Ammurapi. The letter suggests an impending divorce between the royal couple, detailing the division of their joint property.

Administrative and economic texts. The royal palace and temples provided the driving engine of Ugarit’s economy. Many discovered texts shed light upon the kinds of goods and activities that comprised local and international trade. Examples of administrative texts include lists of various towns within the kingdom of Ugarit, tributes that such towns paid to the king in the form of goods or labor service, lists of temple personnel with accompanying salaries, and details of distributed goods to those in royal service. Examples of economic texts include purchase receipts and bills of lading from maritime trade for products such as wool, grains, olives, milk, and metal ore.

Scribal training texts. Among the rich archives of texts at Ugarit, more than one hundred tablets bear witness to scribal training activities scattered throughout the city grounds. Scribes were universally employed by royal empires during the Late Bronze Age, but the sheer number of texts (thousands) found at Ugarit is unusual for a relatively small excavation site. Archives of texts were found in groups throughout the city, and in many of these archives excavators found tablets of special interest, called “abecedaries.” An abecedary is a tablet on which the cuneiform alphabet is written. The Ugaritic alphabet contained thirty signs in roughly the same order as the Hebrew alphabet, largely the same in content as the English alphabet. In addition to Ugaritic abecedaries, a Ugaritic-Akkadian abecedary was found in which equivalent phonetic values are given from the Ugaritic alphabet into Akkadian signs. Lexicons, or word lists, also were discovered, listing words from various ancient Near Eastern languages. Indeed, some of the tablets found in the archives are clearly practice tablets used to train scribes: these tablets display clear signs written by a scribal teacher at the top of the tablet, with the less skilled markings of the apprentice scribe written below. Thus, it is likely that Ugarit served as a training center for scribes from all over the ancient Near East, as well as its own.

Religious texts. Two large temples dominate the northern acropolis region of Ugarit: the temple of Baal, the god of fertility, and the temple of Dagon, the god of grain. Mythology was the vehicle of religious expression in the ancient Near East. Stories about the gods communicated something of the gods’ purposes and realms of authority. In the mythological literature of Ugarit, the pantheon of gods dwelt on Mount Zaphon, and from the dwelling place of El, the high god, rivers of life-giving water flowed. The name “El” was shared among Semitic languages and religions throughout the ancient Near East, including the OT. The name “El” in the Bible can refer either to a foreign god (e.g., Deut. 3:24: “What god [’el] is there in heaven or on earth who can do the deeds and mighty works you do?”) or to the God of Israel (e.g., Gen. 49:25; Deut. 7:9; Ps. 68:19–20). In the pantheon of Ugarit, El’s female consort was the goddess Asherah (1 Kings 18:19; Judg. 3:7).

El, however, was a more distant god in the religion of Ugarit, and the city’s patron god was Baal, the storm god. Baal was associated with fertile fields, abundant crops, and the birth of sons and daughters. The goddess Anat is sometimes described as Baal’s consort, and at other times as Baal’s sister. Anat is the goddess of war, and the epic mythological literature of Ugarit portrays her warfare in rather graphic and gruesome detail. Some scholars claim that Prov. 7:22–23 alludes to Anat’s warfare in the portrayal of the adulterous woman.

Some of the same epithets and accomplishments of Baal found in the religious texts of Ugarit are also attributed to Yahweh in the OT. For example, Baal is called the “Rider of the Clouds” in Ugaritic literature, and a similar description of Yahweh is found in Pss. 68:4 (“Extol him who rides on the clouds”) and 104:3 (“He makes the clouds his chariot and rides on the wings of the wind”). This likely reflects a common ancient Near Eastern concern over the regularity of rain for producing crops, as well as a biblical assertion that Yahweh is superior to Canaanite deities, such as Baal, who claim authority over the forces of nature. Indeed, the OT mocks the impotence of the Canaanite deity Baal to wield power over the forces of nature in narratives such as Elijah versus the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18:16–45).

Baal is also portrayed in the religious literature of Ugarit as the god who conquered the rival gods Sea (Yam) and Death (Motu). The OT gives similar portrayals of Israel’s God in texts such as Gen. 1:2; Isa. 25:7–8. In Gen. 1:2 God’s Spirit “was hovering over the waters,” “the deep,” or the primordial waters from which God brings to life the created world and all of nature (cf. Job 38:8–11). In Isa. 25:7–8 Yahweh is portrayed as more powerful than death in a text of praise that extols his power by saying that “he will swallow up death forever.” Again the biblical texts rely upon a stock set of religious symbols, language, and imagery common to ancient Near Eastern peoples to portray Yahweh, the all-powerful, one God of Israel.

Conclusion

The discovery of Ugarit was an earthshaking event for biblical studies. Scholars have only begun to garner the gems of knowledge hidden within the remains of this lost civilization. The study of the Ugaritic language is invaluable for better understanding biblical Hebrew. Ugaritic sheds light particularly upon rare words and phrases used in the biblical text, as well as upon literary devices and poetic structure, such as parallelism and meter. Furthermore, the study of Ugarit’s religion illuminates the backdrop of Canaanite worship, against which is set the worship of Yahweh in the OT. Ugarit provides for us a snapshot of Late Bronze Age Canaan, the crucible of ancient Near Eastern culture from which the Hebrew Bible was birthed.

A rodent that is one of the unclean animals (Lev. 11:29). A plague of rats was sent upon the Philistines who captured the ark of the covenant (1 Sam. 6:5).

In the KJV this term is used both as a verb meaning “to hunt food” or “to take prey” (Gen. 49:27; Ps. 22:13; Ezek. 22:25, 27) and as a noun meaning “prey taken as food” (Nah. 2:12).

In the KJV this term is used both as a verb meaning “to hunt food” or “to take prey” (Gen. 49:27; Ps. 22:13; Ezek. 22:25, 27) and as a noun meaning “prey taken as food” (Nah. 2:12).

Found only in Isa. 15:7 (NRSV: “Wadi of the Willows”; KJV, RSV: “Brook of the Willows”), it is likely the border between Moab and Edom and the same as the Zered Valley.

Many examples of metal razors with sharp cutting blades for the removal of hair have survived from ancient Israel. Because of the sharpness of the blade, the razor was an appropriate metaphor for the destructive power of the tongue (Ps. 52:2).

Razors are most commonly referred to in the Bible in the terms of the Nazirite vow (Num. 6:5), which separated a person as holy to God. One way in which that holiness was symbolized was the refusal to allow a razor to come near the hair of one’s head. Following the completion of the vow, the head could once again be shaved (Num. 6:18). Samson was born under a Nazirite vow (Judg. 13:5) and enjoyed great strength as long as he kept the vow. When Delilah caused Samson’s head to be shaved, the vow was broken, and God’s presence left him (Judg. 16:19–20).

In other circumstances, shaving was a necessary part of the cleanliness rituals of the Israelite community (Lev. 14:8–9), although priests were required not to shave (21:5). The Assyrian king and his army are described as a razor that will shave the people of Israel (Isa. 7:20). The image indicates the cleansing of the people through the experience of defeat and exile.

(1) A son of Shobal and father of Jahath from the tribe of Judah (1 Chron. 4:2). (2) A descendant of Reuben (1 Chron. 5:5). (3) 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 2:47; 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.

The process of gathering in the harvest, reaping was subject to various Israelite laws. The corners of fields were left for the poor to glean (Lev. 19:9; 23:22), and in the Sabbath and Jubilee Years no harvest was reaped at all. Reaping is frequently used as a metaphor of retribution and reward in the Bible (Job 4:8; Rom. 6:22; Rev. 14:15).

One of the five Midianite kings killed when Moses led the Israelites to execute God’s vengeance on the Midianites for enticing the Israelites into the worship of Baal (Num. 31:8). In Josh. 13:21 the kings are called the “princes allied with Sihon,” the Ammonite king who was defeated alongside them.

The daughter of Abraham’s nephew Bethuel (Gen. 24:15); Isaac’s wife (24:67); the mother of Esau and Jacob (25:25–26). Rebekah is introduced as a beautiful virgin who is willing to serve others (Abraham’s servant) and to follow God’s plan (to marry Isaac). Like Isaac’s mother, Rebekah is barren, but following Isaac’s intercessory prayers, she becomes pregnant with twins twenty years after her wedding (25:20–21, 24–26). According to Gen. 25, Rebekah loves the younger son, Jacob, while Isaac loves the elder, Esau. Rebekah schemes to provide Jacob with the fatherly blessing due the elder son by disguising Jacob as Esau so that Isaac will unknowingly bless his younger son (27:5–17). In response, Esau plots to kill Jacob, and Rebekah is forced to send Jacob away to the home of her brother, Laban (27:42–28:5).

The daughter of Abraham’s nephew Bethuel (Gen. 24:15); Isaac’s wife (24:67); the mother of Esau and Jacob (25:25–26). Rebekah is introduced as a beautiful virgin who is willing to serve others (Abraham’s servant) and to follow God’s plan (to marry Isaac). Like Isaac’s mother, Rebekah is barren, but following Isaac’s intercessory prayers, she becomes pregnant with twins twenty years after her wedding (25:20–21, 24–26). According to Gen. 25, Rebekah loves the younger son, Jacob, while Isaac loves the elder, Esau. Rebekah schemes to provide Jacob with the fatherly blessing due the elder son by disguising Jacob as Esau so that Isaac will unknowingly bless his younger son (27:5–17). In response, Esau plots to kill Jacob, and Rebekah is forced to send Jacob away to the home of her brother, Laban (27:42–28:5).

(1) One of Saul’s commanders, a son of Rimmon, he and his brother Baanah murdered Saul’s son Ish-Bosheth and brought his head to David. Contrary to their expectations in carrying out the act, David had the brothers executed (2 Sam. 4). (2) The father or ancestor of Jehonadab (Jonadab), who accompanied Jehu to Samaria when he destroyed the house of Ahab and assisted him in slaughtering the worshipers of Baal (2 Kings 10). (3) The father of Malkijah, an official who repaired one of the gates of Jerusalem (Neh. 3:14).

The identification of Rekab in 1 Chron. 2:55 is uncertain. The “house of Rekab” (TNIV; cf. ESV, NRSV, NASB [“house of Rechab”]; NIV: “Rekabites”) or “Beth Rekab” (NIV mg.; cf. GW) may refer to a place, person, or both. Here the “house of Rekab” is associated with the Kenites. See also Rekabites.

A family, or perhaps an order, who traced their lineage back to Jehonadab (2 Kings 10; called “Jonadab” in Jer. 35 [NASB, NRSV, KJV]), a Kenite son or descendant of Rekab (see 1 Chron. 2:55), and were, like Jehonadab, zealous for the Lord. When Nebuchadnezzar invaded Judah, the Rekabites fled to Jerusalem to escape. According to their tradition, Jehonadab ordered the family to live in tents, avoid agriculture, and abstain from alcohol. Jeremiah tested their commitment by commanding them to drink wine, which they refused to do. Jeremiah used their obedience to their forefather as an object lesson for the unfaithful Judah (Jer. 35). See also Rekab.

The home of Kelub and his descendants, who were part of the tribe of Judah (1 Chron. 4:12).

(1) One of Saul’s commanders, a son of Rimmon, he and his brother Baanah murdered Saul’s son Ish-Bosheth and brought his head to David. Contrary to their expectations in carrying out the act, David had the brothers executed (2 Sam. 4). (2) The father or ancestor of Jehonadab (Jonadab), who accompanied Jehu to Samaria when he destroyed the house of Ahab and assisted him in slaughtering the worshipers of Baal (2 Kings 10). (3) The father of Malkijah, an official who repaired one of the gates of Jerusalem (Neh. 3:14).

The identification of Rekab in 1 Chron. 2:55 is uncertain. The “house of Rekab” (TNIV; cf. ESV, NRSV, NASB [“house of Rechab”]; NIV: “Rekabites”) or “Beth Rekab” (NIV mg.; cf. GW) may refer to a place, person, or both. Here the “house of Rekab” is associated with the Kenites. See also Rekabites.

A family, or perhaps an order, who traced their lineage back to Jehonadab (2 Kings 10; called “Jonadab” in Jer. 35 [NASB, NRSV, KJV]), a Kenite son or descendant of Rekab (see 1 Chron. 2:55), and were, like Jehonadab, zealous for the Lord. When Nebuchadnezzar invaded Judah, the Rekabites fled to Jerusalem to escape. According to their tradition, Jehonadab ordered the family to live in tents, avoid agriculture, and abstain from alcohol. Jeremiah tested their commitment by commanding them to drink wine, which they refused to do. Jeremiah used their obedience to their forefather as an object lesson for the unfaithful Judah (Jer. 35). See also Rekab.

The home of Kelub and his descendants, who were part of the tribe of Judah (1 Chron. 4:12).

The restoration of a relationship from a state of hostility to one of peace. As such, the concept is far more common than the number of specific references might suggest. The Bible speaks of reconciliation on three levels: (1) God and humanity; (2) human beings with one another; and (3) God and creation.

God and Humanity

The need for reconciliation between God and humanity begins when Adam and Eve rebel against God. What has been a relationship of intimate fellowship becomes one of fear and mistrust as Adam and Eve’s sin brings God’s judgment (Gen. 3:14–19). But in the midst of judgment is the cryptic promise of a descendant of the woman who will crush the serpent and end the estrangement between God and humanity (3:15). The rest of the OT gives glimpses of what reconciliation will be like. God gives the sacrificial system as a means to deal with sin and restore fellowship with him (Lev. 1–7; 16). Despite Israel’s sin, God pursues reconciliation with Israel like a husband chases after a wayward wife (Hos. 1–3). Israel’s hope for reconciliation is often expressed in terms of a desire for peace. Although Aaron’s benediction asks God to give peace to his people in the present (Num. 6:24–26), God’s people look forward to the day when a covenant of peace will be established through the Suffering Servant and announced to the ends of the earth (Isa. 52–54).

What is largely hinted at in the OT is stated explicitly in the NT. Paul in particular explains how believers are reconciled to God and the consequences of that reconciliation. God, not humanity, has taken the initiative. Even though we were sinners subject to God’s wrath, alienated from God and enemies in thought and act, Christ died for us (Rom. 5:6–11; Col. 1:21). As the last Adam, Christ has removed the barrier that our sinful rebellion had created between God and humanity by taking the punishment for our sin. Thus reconciliation is a gift that God offers to humanity (Rom. 5:11), not something that we do to appease God. Because God has reconciled us to himself through Christ, he has entrusted us with the ministry of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:19). Using his people as ambassadors, God appeals to humanity to be reconciled through the work of Christ, whom, though sinless, God made sin for us “so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor. 5:20–21). God’s purpose in reconciliation is to present the believer “holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation” (Col. 1:22). The result of reconciliation is the joy that comes from being at peace with God (Rom. 5:1–2, 11). In view of this, Paul’s frequent greeting “grace and peace” in his letters takes on new light as his desire for believers to experience the reality of their reconciliation to God.

Human Beings with One Another

Reconciliation between God and humanity makes it possible for people truly to be reconciled to one another. Even the natural hostility between Jew and Gentile has been overcome by the work of Christ. Through the cross, Christ “destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations” (Eph. 2:14–15). As a result, Jew and Gentile have been brought together in one body as fellow citizens of God’s kingdom who stand on equal footing before God (Eph. 2:16–22).

As evidence of being reconciled to God, believers are called to pursue reconciliation with others: “If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone” (Rom. 12:18). Pursuing reconciliation with others is so important that Jesus warns his followers that failure to do so can cause a rift in their own fellowship with God. That is why in the Lord’s Prayer God’s people are to pray, “Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us” (Luke 11:4). Since God has forgiven us for our rebellion against him, we ought to forgive others who have wronged us (Col. 3:13). Believers are even instructed to seek reconciliation with others before entering the presence of God (Matt. 5:23–24).

God and Creation

Drawing upon the prophetic hope of the OT, the NT also speaks of a cosmic reconciliation. Through Christ, God is pleased “to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross” (Col. 1:20). By this Paul does not mean the salvation of everyone, but rather that the reconciling work of Jesus is the means by which God restores the created order to peace. Whereas the first Adam’s sin brought a curse upon creation, Christ, as the last Adam, has brought peace that will culminate in new heavens and a new earth free from the effects of sin and death (Isa. 65:17; Rev. 21–22). It is there that God will dwell with his people forever in perfect harmony (Rev. 21:2–5).

An Israelite court official who could represent the king in political and financial matters. Joah, the son of Asaph, was recorder to King Hezekiah and represented him in negotiations with the Rabshakeh, who stood on behalf of the Assyrian king (2 Kings 18:18–37; Isa. 36:3–22). Later, another recorder, also a Joah, represented King Josiah in arranging for the repair of the temple (2 Chron. 34:8).

The color of blood, red is therefore the color used to symbolize sin (Isa. 1:18) and is the color of the horse whose rider brings war upon the earth (Rev. 6:4). See also Colors.

In Num. 19 the red heifer is designated for sacrifice as part of the disposal of impurity from within the Israelite camp: “This is a requirement of the law that the Lord has commanded: Tell the Israelites to bring you a red heifer without defect or blemish and that has never been under a yoke. Give it to Eleazar the priest; it is to be taken outside the camp and slaughtered in his presence” (19:2–3). The red heifer was to be burned along with cedar, hyssop, and scarlet wool, and the ashes thus produced were to be stored in a ceremonially clean place and preserved as “water of cleansing.” Specifically, the procedure under consideration in Num. 19 concerns the disposal of impurity resulting from direct or indirect contact with a corpse, which was removed from the impure person by washing with the “water of cleansing.” It is unclear why a red heifer is specified, although most commentators agree that the color probably was understood as representative of blood. Hebrews 9:13–14 indicates that the significance and efficacy of this procedure are fulfilled by the sacrifice of Christ.

The Red Sea separates the Arabian Peninsula (to the north and east) from the African continent along its approximately fourteen-hundred-mile length. At its southern end, the Red Sea is connected to the Indian Ocean through the Gulf of Aden. At its northern end, the Red Sea divides into the gulfs of Suez and Aqaba, which surround the Sinai Peninsula on two sides.

At high points of their political power (1 Kings 9:26; 22:48), the Israelite peoples controlled a Red Sea port at Ezion Geber on the Gulf of Aqaba (near modern Eilat). Maintaining and using this port required not only the cooperation of Phoenician shipbuilding neighbors to the north, but also the subjugation or cooperation of the Edomite peoples who occupied the long overland route between Ezion Geber and the Israelite homeland. According to 1 Kings 9:26–28, it was from Ezion Geber that Solomon sent ships for “gold of Ophir” (1 Chron. 29:4).

Perhaps the best-known appearance of the Red Sea (Heb. yam sup) in the Bible is the story of the exodus from Egypt and the miraculous crossing of the Red Sea by the Israelites (Exod. 14:17–15:21). By many accounts, the passage combines multiple earlier versions of the story, with the result that it is sometimes difficult to understand what is being described in the narration. The seemingly straightforward geographical references to the “Red Sea” lie at the heart of several debates about the interpretation of the story.

First, which body of water did the Israelites cross? The name “Red Sea” derives from the LXX translation (erythra thalassa) of yam sup, a Hebrew term that probably does not mean “red sea.” References to yam sup in the Bible indicate either the Gulf of Suez (Num. 33:10–11) or the Gulf of Aqaba (e.g., 1 Kings 9:26), though not, as in modern usage, the large body of water stretching all the way to the Gulf of Aden. In trying to determine which body of water the Israelites crossed in Exod. 14:17–15:21, we must look for evidence beyond the name of the sea alone. The picture is complicated by the fact that the composite text does not consistently identify the Red Sea (sometimes preferring simply “the sea”); there seem to be conflicting reports about whether the sea was split and thus about the amount of water present at the point of crossing.

Second, what is the meaning of yam sup? Further complicating the matter has been a discussion of the etymological meaning of yam sup. Pointing to an apparent Egyptian cognate (twf ), a number of scholars have argued that Hebrew sup means “reed,” and that yam sup is the name not of a large saltwater sea (the shores of the modern Red Sea are not reedy), but of a marsh in the Lower Nile region (perhaps the easternmost Pelusiac branch of the Nile Delta). This theory takes note of the fact that Exod. 15 (according to many, the oldest account of the event, as well as one of the oldest texts in the Bible) does not refer to a splitting of the sea and has the (perhaps dubious) advantage of requiring something less than a miracle: the Israelites escaped from the Egyptians by crossing a marsh, in which the chariots of the pursuing army became mired down. Another proposal is to interpret sup not as “red” or “reed” but as cognate to Hebrew sop, “end.” In this view, the Israelites crossed a sea that was either “the border sea” (i.e., a geographical border between Egypt and Canaan) or, in a more mythological perspective, the “sea of ending/extinction.”

The idea of redemption was well known in antiquity. More than a simple notion of deliverance, redemption spoke as much of the grace of the redeemer as of the deliverance of the redeemed. Classical texts use the Greek word apolytrōsis (“redemption”) to articulate the ransom payment given to release a slave, a captive of war, or someone sentenced to death. The group of words based on the Greek term lytron (“ransom”) conveys the idea of payment for release. The corresponding Hebrew word padah is a commercial term rooted in the idea of the transfer of ownership.

Old Testament

The experience of the exodus gave the idea of redemption religious significance. The commemoration of this redemptive event included the dedication of the firstborn to Yahweh (Exod. 13:12–13). Moreover, Israel itself, God’s own firstborn (Exod. 4:22), was redeemed by Yahweh—language that Isaiah later picked up to describe Abraham (Isa. 29:22). As the theme of redemption continued to broaden, God’s redemption came to include deliverance from all Israel’s troubles (Ps. 25:22). Redemption included the whole of the human situation, not just the eternal destiny (or the new age to come).

Another Hebrew term, ga’al, generally relates to the kinsman-redeemer. In the case of a person who had sold property due to poverty or even gone into slavery to pay a debt, a kinsman could become a redeemer by buying back the property (Lev. 25:25–28) and/or purchasing freedom from slavery (25:47–49). The book of Ruth describes this, detailing the relationship between the impoverished Ruth and Boaz, the kinsman-redeemer. The prophets and the psalms apply this understanding to how God redeems Israel (Isa. 43:1–3; Ps. 19:14; cf. Job 19:25). God, however, does not pay ransom to anyone (Isa. 52:3–4); rather, he causes redemption by his power (45:13).

The awaited Messiah, promised through the prophets, would become God’s ultimate expression of his redemptive love. When the people’s continued rebellion against God finally broke the Mosaic covenant, God’s judgment sent them into captivity and exile in Babylon. Now, without place and identity, their only hope for a future was if God would ransom his people and restore his covenant with them. This longing for God’s redemption grew during the exile. As the persecutions increased further during the so-called intertestamental period (an approximately four-hundred-year period between the OT and the NT), the earlier prophetic promises became a full-blown messianic hope. God will send the Messiah as redeemer to ransom his people from Greek and Roman oppression.

New Testament

The NT champions the theme of redemption (see Luke 4:18–19). When Jesus came, teaching that he would redeem his people from the slavery of sin (John 8:34–36), he spoke of himself as a ransom for many (Matt. 20:28 // Mark 10:45). Paul’s theology of the cross accentuated the same connection between sin, slavery, and Jesus’ ransom. He saw people as sold into slavery under sin (Rom. 6:17; 7:14) and redeemed by Jesus’ sacrifice (3:24). The Christian idea of ransom followed the accepted contemporary idea that people who are sentenced to death (Rom. 6:23) can gain their life back if a redeemer buys it with a ransom (Col. 1:13–14). The predominance of apolytrōsis in the NT, compared to common Greek literature of that period, underscores its significance for early Christian conceptualization.

Without reflecting on to whom the ransom should be paid, which was made an issue by later theologians and philosophers, the NT authors highlight Jesus’ blood as the ransom payment (e.g., Eph. 1:7; Heb. 9:12; cf. Rev. 5:9). The emphases of the NT remain on the need of the redeemed, the grace of the redeemer, and the effects of the redemption. Christ’s ransom transfers the redeemed from one sphere of influence to another, or rather, from one owner to another. Incomparable to commonly known worldly ransoms, which consisted of monetary means and remained external to the redeemer himself (1 Pet. 3:18–19), Jesus substituted his own life for the life of those he redeemed (antilytron hyper [1 Tim. 2:6]). God still did not pay ransom to anyone, but rather caused it by his own power.

The OT notion that redemption points to God’s involvement in the present, allowing for a historical experience of salvation, fills the NT conception as well. This is seen most clearly in Paul’s theological ethics. The new ownership accomplished by Jesus’ redemption enables a new kind of life to be lived in freedom from the slavery of sin (1 Cor. 6:20; Gal. 5:1). More than just a matter of ethics, it follows Jesus’ emphasis of an “already but not yet” experience of God’s presence. Redemption is evidenced by the Spirit’s presence (Rom. 8:1–17).

Although redemption is present, the fullness of it still awaits the future (Rom. 8:18–23), when the redeemer will fill all in all (1 Cor. 15:28; Col. 1:19–20). Contrary to Hellenistic conceptions of redemption, which expect redemption from the body, Paul expects redemption of the body. God’s eschatological redemption is universal; it restores the relationship between creation and the Creator (Col. 1:21–23; Eph. 1:7–10).

The idea of redemption was well known in antiquity. More than a simple notion of deliverance, redemption spoke as much of the grace of the redeemer as of the deliverance of the redeemed. Classical texts use the Greek word apolytrōsis (“redemption”) to articulate the ransom payment given to release a slave, a captive of war, or someone sentenced to death. The group of words based on the Greek term lytron (“ransom”) conveys the idea of payment for release. The corresponding Hebrew word padah is a commercial term rooted in the idea of the transfer of ownership.

Old Testament

The experience of the exodus gave the idea of redemption religious significance. The commemoration of this redemptive event included the dedication of the firstborn to Yahweh (Exod. 13:12–13). Moreover, Israel itself, God’s own firstborn (Exod. 4:22), was redeemed by Yahweh—language that Isaiah later picked up to describe Abraham (Isa. 29:22). As the theme of redemption continued to broaden, God’s redemption came to include deliverance from all Israel’s troubles (Ps. 25:22). Redemption included the whole of the human situation, not just the eternal destiny (or the new age to come).

Another Hebrew term, ga’al, generally relates to the kinsman-redeemer. In the case of a person who had sold property due to poverty or even gone into slavery to pay a debt, a kinsman could become a redeemer by buying back the property (Lev. 25:25–28) and/or purchasing freedom from slavery (25:47–49). The book of Ruth describes this, detailing the relationship between the impoverished Ruth and Boaz, the kinsman-redeemer. The prophets and the psalms apply this understanding to how God redeems Israel (Isa. 43:1–3; Ps. 19:14; cf. Job 19:25). God, however, does not pay ransom to anyone (Isa. 52:3–4); rather, he causes redemption by his power (45:13).

The awaited Messiah, promised through the prophets, would become God’s ultimate expression of his redemptive love. When the people’s continued rebellion against God finally broke the Mosaic covenant, God’s judgment sent them into captivity and exile in Babylon. Now, without place and identity, their only hope for a future was if God would ransom his people and restore his covenant with them. This longing for God’s redemption grew during the exile. As the persecutions increased further during the so-called intertestamental period (an approximately four-hundred-year period between the OT and the NT), the earlier prophetic promises became a full-blown messianic hope. God will send the Messiah as redeemer to ransom his people from Greek and Roman oppression.

New Testament

The NT champions the theme of redemption (see Luke 4:18–19). When Jesus came, teaching that he would redeem his people from the slavery of sin (John 8:34–36), he spoke of himself as a ransom for many (Matt. 20:28 // Mark 10:45). Paul’s theology of the cross accentuated the same connection between sin, slavery, and Jesus’ ransom. He saw people as sold into slavery under sin (Rom. 6:17; 7:14) and redeemed by Jesus’ sacrifice (3:24). The Christian idea of ransom followed the accepted contemporary idea that people who are sentenced to death (Rom. 6:23) can gain their life back if a redeemer buys it with a ransom (Col. 1:13–14). The predominance of apolytrōsis in the NT, compared to common Greek literature of that period, underscores its significance for early Christian conceptualization.

Without reflecting on to whom the ransom should be paid, which was made an issue by later theologians and philosophers, the NT authors highlight Jesus’ blood as the ransom payment (e.g., Eph. 1:7; Heb. 9:12; cf. Rev. 5:9). The emphases of the NT remain on the need of the redeemed, the grace of the redeemer, and the effects of the redemption. Christ’s ransom transfers the redeemed from one sphere of influence to another, or rather, from one owner to another. Incomparable to commonly known worldly ransoms, which consisted of monetary means and remained external to the redeemer himself (1 Pet. 3:18–19), Jesus substituted his own life for the life of those he redeemed (antilytron hyper [1 Tim. 2:6]). God still did not pay ransom to anyone, but rather caused it by his own power.

The OT notion that redemption points to God’s involvement in the present, allowing for a historical experience of salvation, fills the NT conception as well. This is seen most clearly in Paul’s theological ethics. The new ownership accomplished by Jesus’ redemption enables a new kind of life to be lived in freedom from the slavery of sin (1 Cor. 6:20; Gal. 5:1). More than just a matter of ethics, it follows Jesus’ emphasis of an “already but not yet” experience of God’s presence. Redemption is evidenced by the Spirit’s presence (Rom. 8:1–17).

Although redemption is present, the fullness of it still awaits the future (Rom. 8:18–23), when the redeemer will fill all in all (1 Cor. 15:28; Col. 1:19–20). Contrary to Hellenistic conceptions of redemption, which expect redemption from the body, Paul expects redemption of the body. God’s eschatological redemption is universal; it restores the relationship between creation and the Creator (Col. 1:21–23; Eph. 1:7–10).

The idea of redemption was well known in antiquity. More than a simple notion of deliverance, redemption spoke as much of the grace of the redeemer as of the deliverance of the redeemed. Classical texts use the Greek word apolytrōsis (“redemption”) to articulate the ransom payment given to release a slave, a captive of war, or someone sentenced to death. The group of words based on the Greek term lytron (“ransom”) conveys the idea of payment for release. The corresponding Hebrew word padah is a commercial term rooted in the idea of the transfer of ownership.

Old Testament

The experience of the exodus gave the idea of redemption religious significance. The commemoration of this redemptive event included the dedication of the firstborn to Yahweh (Exod. 13:12–13). Moreover, Israel itself, God’s own firstborn (Exod. 4:22), was redeemed by Yahweh—language that Isaiah later picked up to describe Abraham (Isa. 29:22). As the theme of redemption continued to broaden, God’s redemption came to include deliverance from all Israel’s troubles (Ps. 25:22). Redemption included the whole of the human situation, not just the eternal destiny (or the new age to come).

Another Hebrew term, ga’al, generally relates to the kinsman-redeemer. In the case of a person who had sold property due to poverty or even gone into slavery to pay a debt, a kinsman could become a redeemer by buying back the property (Lev. 25:25–28) and/or purchasing freedom from slavery (25:47–49). The book of Ruth describes this, detailing the relationship between the impoverished Ruth and Boaz, the kinsman-redeemer. The prophets and the psalms apply this understanding to how God redeems Israel (Isa. 43:1–3; Ps. 19:14; cf. Job 19:25). God, however, does not pay ransom to anyone (Isa. 52:3–4); rather, he causes redemption by his power (45:13).

The awaited Messiah, promised through the prophets, would become God’s ultimate expression of his redemptive love. When the people’s continued rebellion against God finally broke the Mosaic covenant, God’s judgment sent them into captivity and exile in Babylon. Now, without place and identity, their only hope for a future was if God would ransom his people and restore his covenant with them. This longing for God’s redemption grew during the exile. As the persecutions increased further during the so-called intertestamental period (an approximately four-hundred-year period between the OT and the NT), the earlier prophetic promises became a full-blown messianic hope. God will send the Messiah as redeemer to ransom his people from Greek and Roman oppression.

New Testament

The NT champions the theme of redemption (see Luke 4:18–19). When Jesus came, teaching that he would redeem his people from the slavery of sin (John 8:34–36), he spoke of himself as a ransom for many (Matt. 20:28 // Mark 10:45). Paul’s theology of the cross accentuated the same connection between sin, slavery, and Jesus’ ransom. He saw people as sold into slavery under sin (Rom. 6:17; 7:14) and redeemed by Jesus’ sacrifice (3:24). The Christian idea of ransom followed the accepted contemporary idea that people who are sentenced to death (Rom. 6:23) can gain their life back if a redeemer buys it with a ransom (Col. 1:13–14). The predominance of apolytrōsis in the NT, compared to common Greek literature of that period, underscores its significance for early Christian conceptualization.

Without reflecting on to whom the ransom should be paid, which was made an issue by later theologians and philosophers, the NT authors highlight Jesus’ blood as the ransom payment (e.g., Eph. 1:7; Heb. 9:12; cf. Rev. 5:9). The emphases of the NT remain on the need of the redeemed, the grace of the redeemer, and the effects of the redemption. Christ’s ransom transfers the redeemed from one sphere of influence to another, or rather, from one owner to another. Incomparable to commonly known worldly ransoms, which consisted of monetary means and remained external to the redeemer himself (1 Pet. 3:18–19), Jesus substituted his own life for the life of those he redeemed (antilytron hyper [1 Tim. 2:6]). God still did not pay ransom to anyone, but rather caused it by his own power.

The OT notion that redemption points to God’s involvement in the present, allowing for a historical experience of salvation, fills the NT conception as well. This is seen most clearly in Paul’s theological ethics. The new ownership accomplished by Jesus’ redemption enables a new kind of life to be lived in freedom from the slavery of sin (1 Cor. 6:20; Gal. 5:1). More than just a matter of ethics, it follows Jesus’ emphasis of an “already but not yet” experience of God’s presence. Redemption is evidenced by the Spirit’s presence (Rom. 8:1–17).

Although redemption is present, the fullness of it still awaits the future (Rom. 8:18–23), when the redeemer will fill all in all (1 Cor. 15:28; Col. 1:19–20). Contrary to Hellenistic conceptions of redemption, which expect redemption from the body, Paul expects redemption of the body. God’s eschatological redemption is universal; it restores the relationship between creation and the Creator (Col. 1:21–23; Eph. 1:7–10).

The idea of redemption was well known in antiquity. More than a simple notion of deliverance, redemption spoke as much of the grace of the redeemer as of the deliverance of the redeemed. Classical texts use the Greek word apolytrōsis (“redemption”) to articulate the ransom payment given to release a slave, a captive of war, or someone sentenced to death. The group of words based on the Greek term lytron (“ransom”) conveys the idea of payment for release. The corresponding Hebrew word padah is a commercial term rooted in the idea of the transfer of ownership.

Old Testament

The experience of the exodus gave the idea of redemption religious significance. The commemoration of this redemptive event included the dedication of the firstborn to Yahweh (Exod. 13:12–13). Moreover, Israel itself, God’s own firstborn (Exod. 4:22), was redeemed by Yahweh—language that Isaiah later picked up to describe Abraham (Isa. 29:22). As the theme of redemption continued to broaden, God’s redemption came to include deliverance from all Israel’s troubles (Ps. 25:22). Redemption included the whole of the human situation, not just the eternal destiny (or the new age to come).

Another Hebrew term, ga’al, generally relates to the kinsman-redeemer. In the case of a person who had sold property due to poverty or even gone into slavery to pay a debt, a kinsman could become a redeemer by buying back the property (Lev. 25:25–28) and/or purchasing freedom from slavery (25:47–49). The book of Ruth describes this, detailing the relationship between the impoverished Ruth and Boaz, the kinsman-redeemer. The prophets and the psalms apply this understanding to how God redeems Israel (Isa. 43:1–3; Ps. 19:14; cf. Job 19:25). God, however, does not pay ransom to anyone (Isa. 52:3–4); rather, he causes redemption by his power (45:13).

The awaited Messiah, promised through the prophets, would become God’s ultimate expression of his redemptive love. When the people’s continued rebellion against God finally broke the Mosaic covenant, God’s judgment sent them into captivity and exile in Babylon. Now, without place and identity, their only hope for a future was if God would ransom his people and restore his covenant with them. This longing for God’s redemption grew during the exile. As the persecutions increased further during the so-called intertestamental period (an approximately four-hundred-year period between the OT and the NT), the earlier prophetic promises became a full-blown messianic hope. God will send the Messiah as redeemer to ransom his people from Greek and Roman oppression.

New Testament

The NT champions the theme of redemption (see Luke 4:18–19). When Jesus came, teaching that he would redeem his people from the slavery of sin (John 8:34–36), he spoke of himself as a ransom for many (Matt. 20:28 // Mark 10:45). Paul’s theology of the cross accentuated the same connection between sin, slavery, and Jesus’ ransom. He saw people as sold into slavery under sin (Rom. 6:17; 7:14) and redeemed by Jesus’ sacrifice (3:24). The Christian idea of ransom followed the accepted contemporary idea that people who are sentenced to death (Rom. 6:23) can gain their life back if a redeemer buys it with a ransom (Col. 1:13–14). The predominance of apolytrōsis in the NT, compared to common Greek literature of that period, underscores its significance for early Christian conceptualization.

Without reflecting on to whom the ransom should be paid, which was made an issue by later theologians and philosophers, the NT authors highlight Jesus’ blood as the ransom payment (e.g., Eph. 1:7; Heb. 9:12; cf. Rev. 5:9). The emphases of the NT remain on the need of the redeemed, the grace of the redeemer, and the effects of the redemption. Christ’s ransom transfers the redeemed from one sphere of influence to another, or rather, from one owner to another. Incomparable to commonly known worldly ransoms, which consisted of monetary means and remained external to the redeemer himself (1 Pet. 3:18–19), Jesus substituted his own life for the life of those he redeemed (antilytron hyper [1 Tim. 2:6]). God still did not pay ransom to anyone, but rather caused it by his own power.

The OT notion that redemption points to God’s involvement in the present, allowing for a historical experience of salvation, fills the NT conception as well. This is seen most clearly in Paul’s theological ethics. The new ownership accomplished by Jesus’ redemption enables a new kind of life to be lived in freedom from the slavery of sin (1 Cor. 6:20; Gal. 5:1). More than just a matter of ethics, it follows Jesus’ emphasis of an “already but not yet” experience of God’s presence. Redemption is evidenced by the Spirit’s presence (Rom. 8:1–17).

Although redemption is present, the fullness of it still awaits the future (Rom. 8:18–23), when the redeemer will fill all in all (1 Cor. 15:28; Col. 1:19–20). Contrary to Hellenistic conceptions of redemption, which expect redemption from the body, Paul expects redemption of the body. God’s eschatological redemption is universal; it restores the relationship between creation and the Creator (Col. 1:21–23; Eph. 1:7–10).

The bulrush or papyrus plant was a type of reed growing in marshes or riverbanks, especially of the Nile. It was a basic resource for writing, fuel (Job 41:20), ropes (Job 41:2), and light vessels (Exod. 2:3). It is also used as a symbol of God’s punishment of Egypt (Isa. 19:15) and the restoration of Zion (Isa. 35:7).

The Red Sea separates the Arabian Peninsula (to the north and east) from the African continent along its approximately fourteen-hundred-mile length. At its southern end, the Red Sea is connected to the Indian Ocean through the Gulf of Aden. At its northern end, the Red Sea divides into the gulfs of Suez and Aqaba, which surround the Sinai Peninsula on two sides.

At high points of their political power (1 Kings 9:26; 22:48), the Israelite peoples controlled a Red Sea port at Ezion Geber on the Gulf of Aqaba (near modern Eilat). Maintaining and using this port required not only the cooperation of Phoenician shipbuilding neighbors to the north, but also the subjugation or cooperation of the Edomite peoples who occupied the long overland route between Ezion Geber and the Israelite homeland. According to 1 Kings 9:26–28, it was from Ezion Geber that Solomon sent ships for “gold of Ophir” (1 Chron. 29:4).

Perhaps the best-known appearance of the Red Sea (Heb. yam sup) in the Bible is the story of the exodus from Egypt and the miraculous crossing of the Red Sea by the Israelites (Exod. 14:17–15:21). By many accounts, the passage combines multiple earlier versions of the story, with the result that it is sometimes difficult to understand what is being described in the narration. The seemingly straightforward geographical references to the “Red Sea” lie at the heart of several debates about the interpretation of the story.

First, which body of water did the Israelites cross? The name “Red Sea” derives from the LXX translation (erythra thalassa) of yam sup, a Hebrew term that probably does not mean “red sea.” References to yam sup in the Bible indicate either the Gulf of Suez (Num. 33:10–11) or the Gulf of Aqaba (e.g., 1 Kings 9:26), though not, as in modern usage, the large body of water stretching all the way to the Gulf of Aden. In trying to determine which body of water the Israelites crossed in Exod. 14:17–15:21, we must look for evidence beyond the name of the sea alone. The picture is complicated by the fact that the composite text does not consistently identify the Red Sea (sometimes preferring simply “the sea”); there seem to be conflicting reports about whether the sea was split and thus about the amount of water present at the point of crossing.

Second, what is the meaning of yam sup? Further complicating the matter has been a discussion of the etymological meaning of yam sup. Pointing to an apparent Egyptian cognate (twf ), a number of scholars have argued that Hebrew sup means “reed,” and that yam sup is the name not of a large saltwater sea (the shores of the modern Red Sea are not reedy), but of a marsh in the Lower Nile region (perhaps the easternmost Pelusiac branch of the Nile Delta). This theory takes note of the fact that Exod. 15 (according to many, the oldest account of the event, as well as one of the oldest texts in the Bible) does not refer to a splitting of the sea and has the (perhaps dubious) advantage of requiring something less than a miracle: the Israelites escaped from the Egyptians by crossing a marsh, in which the chariots of the pursuing army became mired down. Another proposal is to interpret sup not as “red” or “reed” but as cognate to Hebrew sop, “end.” In this view, the Israelites crossed a sea that was either “the border sea” (i.e., a geographical border between Egypt and Canaan) or, in a more mythological perspective, the “sea of ending/extinction.”

A leader of the returnees who came back from Babylon to Judah with Zerubbabel (Ezra 2:2). He is called “Raamiah” in Neh. 7:7.

In metallurgy, to separate pure metal from impurities. The process of refining is used figuratively in the Bible in reference to God purifying his people from their sin (Jer. 9:7; Zech. 13:9; Mal. 3:3).

A crucible (Prov. 17:3; 27:21; KJV: “fining pot”; see also Ps. 12:6) is a vessel in which a metal (in biblical times, silver-bearing lead sulfide) is heated to a high temperature, in order to remove impurities (Jer. 6:29–30; Ezek. 22:18–22). In Proverbs, it is mentioned in comparison to the way God tests and refines the human heart.

The translation in several Bible versions (e.g., KJV, NASB, ESV) of the Greek word diorthōsis, which appears in the NT only in Heb. 9:10, where it describes either the “new order” (NIV) in which Christ’s work sets aside the old legal regulations for approaching God or the process of establishing it.

A descendant of Caleb and son of Jahdai (1 Chron. 2:47).

Probably the name, though possibly the title, of an emissary sent by the people of Bethel to the priests and prophets to determine whether fasting in the fifth month, likely to commemorate the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem by the Babylonians, was still required as the new temple neared completion seventy years later (Zech. 7:2–3).

Probably the name, though possibly the title, of an emissary sent by the people of Bethel to the priests and prophets to determine whether fasting in the fifth month, likely to commemorate the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem by the Babylonians, was still required as the new temple neared completion seventy years later (Zech. 7:2–3).

In the most basic sense, regeneration refers to God giving new life to someone or something. Although the word “regeneration” does not appear in the NIV, the concept is abundantly present in a variety of terms and images, especially those of new birth, new life, new self, new heart, and new creation. The biblical concept of regeneration is applied to both individuals and creation.

Individuals. Because of Adam’s rebellion in the garden, humanity plunged into spiritual death (Rom. 5:12–14). Nothing short of God imparting new life to a person can overcome this condition. The classic expression of this truth is found in Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus (John 3:1–21). According to Jesus, entering the kingdom of God requires being born again, which he further explains as being “born of water and the Spirit” (John 3:3–5). Jesus’ description taps into the language of Ezek. 36:25–27, where God promises to sprinkle clean water on his people and put his Spirit within them.

Paul also attributes regeneration to the work of the Spirit when he says that God “saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life” (Titus 3:5–7). The renewing work of the Spirit is the initial aspect of a person’s experience of salvation, but it is closely connected with several other aspects of God’s work in the believer, such as justification, inheritance, and eternal life. The transformation that regeneration begins is so profound that Paul can refer to it as an act of “new creation” in which a person who experiences it is, in a very real sense, an entirely new person (2 Cor. 5:17).

In addition to making a person spiritually alive, God’s act of regeneration places within the believer a new disposition or orientation toward faith in Christ and obedience to him. Those who are born of God believe that Jesus is the Christ (1 John 5:1), love God and others (4:7–11), and do not continue in sin (3:9). God makes sinners alive not only to show the riches of his grace (Eph. 2:4–7), but also so that they “do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do” (2:10).

Creation. God’s work of regeneration extends beyond the individual to the entire creation. Jesus refers to the consummation of God’s plans as “the renewal [palingenesia, ‘regeneration’] of all things” (Matt. 19:28). Because of Adam’s sin, creation was placed under a curse (Gen. 3:17–19). To this day, creation groans under that curse (Rom. 8:19–22). But in the OT, God promised to renew the created order (Isa. 65:17; 66:22). The death and resurrection of Jesus are the initial fulfillment of this cosmic regeneration (Matt. 27:51–53; 1 Cor. 15:20–23), but the completion awaits the new heaven and earth (Rev. 21–22).

The regeneration of the individual and creation are inseparable. God imparts new spiritual life to his chosen people so that they respond in faith and obedience to him. The same regenerating power that brings the believer alive will one day renew all creation to make a suitable place for God’s regenerate people to dwell. See also New Birth.

An auxiliary unit in the Roman army made up of non-Roman citizens who could gain citizenship through their service. This particular unit was stationed in Syria and held some level of favor as related to its association with the famed emperor. The centurions of this cohort escorted Paul on his journey from Caesarea to Rome (Acts 27:1 [NIV: “Imperial Regiment”]).

In the KJV, “register” refers to a genealogical record of names (Ezra 2:62; Neh. 7:5, 64). In the NIV and other modern translations, it is used in the verbal sense of recording in formal records (Ps. 87:6), as in a census (Luke 2:3, 5).

The son of Eliezer, a grandson of Moses, and a Levitical leader (1 Chron. 23:17; 24:21; 26:25).

(1) The father of Hadadezer, king of Zobah (2 Sam. 8:3, 12). (2) One of the Levites who signed the covenant made in the days of Nehemiah (Neh. 10:11). (3) A geographical region reached by the Israelite spies (Num. 13:21), marking the northern limit of the land of Canaan (cf. Beth Rehob in Judg. 18:28; 2 Sam. 10:6). (4) Two towns in the territory of Asher, one on its northern border and the other in the plain of Akko. One of them was given to the Levites (Josh. 21:31), and the other remained in Canaanite control for a long time (Judg. 1:31). (5) A city five miles south of Beth Shan, frequently found in the Egyptian sources, but not in the Bible.

A son of Solomon, he was the first king of Judah (928–911 BC) after the ten northern tribes broke away to form a separate kingdom.

Rehoboam’s mother, Naamah, an Ammonite woman (1 Kings 14:21), contributed to his father’s turning toward the worship of foreign gods. For this reason, the united kingdom of Israel did not survive Solomon’s reign. After his death, the tribe of Judah immediately proclaimed Rehoboam king, but the ten northern tribes imposed conditions on their acceptance of his leadership. Solomon had wrongly oppressed the northern tribes, and they wanted relief from his son. Listening to the counsel of his contemporaries rather than the wiser, older advisers, Rehoboam refused and even boasted that he would increase their work and taxation. They thus rejected him as king and appointed Jeroboam as their king (1 Kings 12:1–24). At first, Rehoboam waged war against the north, but he stopped when the prophet Shemaiah told him that he would fail because of God’s judgment (2 Chron. 11:1–4). He returned south and fortified the border (2 Chron. 11:5–12). Rehoboam, like his father, engaged in false worship, and so God allowed him to be defeated and the temple plundered by King Shishak of Egypt. However, he repented and thus was not completely destroyed (2 Chron. 12).

The name “Rehoboth” can mean either “plazas” or “spacious place.” (1) In the Table of Nations, Rehoboth Ir is named as one of four cities built by Nimrod (Gen. 10:11), who “was a mighty hunter before the Lord” (Gen. 10:9). It may refer to a district of Nineveh rather than an independent city. (2) One of the wells that Isaac dug. Isaac previously dug two other wells in the Negev but lost both to the “herders of Gerar” (Gen. 26:20), who claimed that the water was theirs. His third well in the region he named “Rehoboth,” saying, “Now the Lord has given us room” (Gen. 26:22). (3) “Rehoboth on the (Euphrates?) river” (“Rehoboth ha-Nahar”) is listed as the home of Shaul, who replaced Samlah as king of Edom (Gen. 36:37 // 1 Chron. 1:48). This place name may refer to a region or a specific city.

The name “Rehoboth” can mean either “plazas” or “spacious place.” (1) In the Table of Nations, Rehoboth Ir is named as one of four cities built by Nimrod (Gen. 10:11), who “was a mighty hunter before the Lord” (Gen. 10:9). It may refer to a district of Nineveh rather than an independent city. (2) One of the wells that Isaac dug. Isaac previously dug two other wells in the Negev but lost both to the “herders of Gerar” (Gen. 26:20), who claimed that the water was theirs. His third well in the region he named “Rehoboth,” saying, “Now the Lord has given us room” (Gen. 26:22). (3) “Rehoboth on the (Euphrates?) river” (“Rehoboth ha-Nahar”) is listed as the home of Shaul, who replaced Samlah as king of Edom (Gen. 36:37 // 1 Chron. 1:48). This place name may refer to a region or a specific city.

(1) A Levite leader who returned with Zerubbabel to Jerusalem after the exile (Ezra 2:2; Neh. 12:3 [cf. Neh. 7:7, where Nehum is likely the same person]). (2) A commanding officer identified as one “of the enemies of Judah and Benjamin” (Ezra 4:1) whose offer of help to Zerubbabel was rejected. He, along with Shimshai, wrote a letter to Artaxerxes asking him to command the discontinuation of the temple building, which he did (Ezra 4:6–24). (3) The son of Bani, he helped in the rebuilding of the wall of Jerusalem under the direction of Nehemiah (Neh. 3:17). He is likely the same person as the Rehum of Ezra 2:2; Neh. 12:3. (4) One of the leaders who signed the covenant renewal at the time of Ezra and Nehemiah (Neh. 10:25). He is likely the same person as the Rehum of Ezra 2:2; Neh. 12:3.

A man who stayed loyal to David when Adonijah attempted to seize the throne (1 Kings 1:8).

The KJV translation of Hebrew words (kilyah; khalats) that may mean either an anatomical (“kidneys”; “loins”) or figurative (“heart”) part of humans. It appears once in the NT, translating the Greek word nephros (Rev. 2:23). The variety of NIV translations reflects the manifold meaning of this word in Hebrew thought: “kidney” (Job 16:13), “waist” (Isa. 11:5), “heart” (Job 19:27), “spirit” (Ps. 73:21), “inmost being” (Ps. 139:13; Prov. 23:16), and “mind” (Jer. 17:10).

(1) One of Saul’s commanders, a son of Rimmon, he and his brother Baanah murdered Saul’s son Ish-Bosheth and brought his head to David. Contrary to their expectations in carrying out the act, David had the brothers executed (2 Sam. 4). (2) The father or ancestor of Jehonadab (Jonadab), who accompanied Jehu to Samaria when he destroyed the house of Ahab and assisted him in slaughtering the worshipers of Baal (2 Kings 10). (3) The father of Malkijah, an official who repaired one of the gates of Jerusalem (Neh. 3:14).

The identification of Rekab in 1 Chron. 2:55 is uncertain. The “house of Rekab” (TNIV; cf. ESV, NRSV, NASB [“house of Rechab”]; NIV: “Rekabites”) or “Beth Rekab” (NIV mg.; cf. GW) may refer to a place, person, or both. Here the “house of Rekab” is associated with the Kenites. See also Rekabites.

A family, or perhaps an order, who traced their lineage back to Jehonadab (2 Kings 10; called “Jonadab” in Jer. 35 [NASB, NRSV, KJV]), a Kenite son or descendant of Rekab (see 1 Chron. 2:55), and were, like Jehonadab, zealous for the Lord. When Nebuchadnezzar invaded Judah, the Rekabites fled to Jerusalem to escape. According to their tradition, Jehonadab ordered the family to live in tents, avoid agriculture, and abstain from alcohol. Jeremiah tested their commitment by commanding them to drink wine, which they refused to do. Jeremiah used their obedience to their forefather as an object lesson for the unfaithful Judah (Jer. 35). See also Rekab.

The home of Kelub and his descendants, who were part of the tribe of Judah (1 Chron. 4:12).

(1) One of the five kings of Midian defeated by an Israelite force led by Moses (Num. 31:8; Josh. 13:21). Josephus associates his city with Petra. (2) A descendant of Caleb (1 Chron. 2:43–44). (3) A city in the inheritance of Benjamin, likely on the western side (Josh. 18:27). See also Rakem.

The word “religion” as used today refers to differing systems of worship and foundational theological principles undergirding those systems. There are as many systems of worship as there are deities in the world. In the sense that Christianity has a deity to worship, a system of worship related to him, and a set of foundational principles set forth for the acting out of that worship, it can be said that Christianity is a religion. The objection here for many is that identifying Christianity as a religion may detract from its exclusivity and class it as simply one among many world religions. Yet this objection probably is overstated. The word “religion” is certainly used in the Scriptures, and Christianity is referred to as a religion in a positive sense.

The Greek word commonly translated as “religion” in the NT is thrēskeia. It is used in reference to Christianity, but it also refers to Judaism or other forms of worship. As Paul gives his defense before Agrippa (and Festus), he notes that he has done nothing worthy of blame, for it was God who had changed his heart about Jesus as the Messiah. Before that, he had walked in the strictest of paths, as a Pharisee, in the Jewish religion (Acts 26:5). As Paul addresses the Colossian heresy, he instructs the believers not to be caught up in the worship (thrēskeia) of angels, a part of the composite false religion that was threatening the Colossian church (Col. 2:18). James notes that if a person claims to be religious but does not control the tongue, that person’s religion is useless (James 1:26). Religion that is true religion, being pure and undefiled, is to act in compassion toward those most helpless, taking care of orphans and widows in their distress, and to walk in a proper biblical ethic (1:27).

As for other systems of religion in Scripture, God consistently warns the children of Israel about the false religions of the nations, worship of deities such as Baal and Chemosh. There was always a temptation for the Israelites to gravitate to those religions or to reshape Judaism to be like them. In the world of the NT, religions were varied and many, and Christians are warned against all forms of false worship.

The father of Pekah, who was the chief officer of King Pekahiah and assassinated him in order to become king of Israel (2 Kings 15:25–16:5).

A town in the tribal allotment of Issachar (Josh. 19:21), probably the same as Ramoth (1 Chron. 6:73) and Jarmuth (Josh. 21:29).

A word used in the KJV to describe the removal of the guilt or penalty of sin acquired through belief in Christ (Acts 10:43) and effected through his shed blood (Matt. 26:28; Heb. 9:22), bringing about salvation (Luke 1:77). Accompanied with repentance, baptism, either by John the Baptist (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3) or in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38), is done “for the remission of sins.” Modern translations prefer the word “forgiveness,” where it translates the Greek word aphesis. In Rom. 3:25 the KJV translates the word paresis as “remission,” where it refers to God’s leaving sins unpunished in anticipation of Christ’s atoning work. Although the noun “forgiveness” is rare in the OT (Ps. 130:4; Dan. 9:9), God is often asked to “forgive” (e.g., Exod. 32:32; Ps. 25:18); he is declared “forgiving” several times (Pss. 86:5; 99:8; Neh. 9:17), and this trait is included in the divine self-description given to Moses (Exod. 34:7). Remission may also refer to the removal of an economic instead of a spiritual debt, such as that commanded of the Israelites every seventh year (Deut. 15:1–2, 9; 31:10 NASB, NRSV), or taxes (Esther 2:18 ESV).

(1) Meaning “pomegranate,” it is a common place name, both on its own and in combination. There were settlements by that name in the tribes of Judah, Simeon, Zebulun, Dan, and Manasseh (Josh. 15:32; 19:7–45). One of the resting places during Israel’s wilderness wandering, Rimmon Perez, bore this name (Num. 33:19–20). During the Israelite civil war at Gibeah, a Benjamite remnant of six hundred men took refuge at the “rock of Rimmon” (Judg. 20:45). (See also Remmonmethoar.) (2) The father of Ish-Bosheth’s murderers, a Gibeonite from Beeroth (2 Sam. 4:2–6). (3) An Aramean (and Babylonian) deity, the god of rain (2 Kings 5:18).

The KJV name for a Levitical city on the border of the tribe of Zebulun (Josh. 19:13). The NIV and other versions translate the name as “Rimmon” and “methoar” as the verb “to turn.” The same location is named “Rimmono” in 1 Chron. 6:77 and“Dimnah” in Josh. 21:35. It usually is identified with modern Rummaneh, six miles northeast of Nazareth.

The concept of a remnant or a “remnant theology” runs throughout Scripture. Although appearing in a wide variety of texts and contexts, the central idea of the remnant concept or remnant theology is that in the midst of seemingly total apostasy and the consequential terrible judgment and/or destruction, God always has a small, faithful group that he delivers and works through to bring blessing.

Old Testament

Early allusions to the idea of a remnant are introduced in the book of Genesis. Noah and his family (Gen. 6–9) are the remnant that is saved during the flood, when all other people are destroyed in judgment. Likewise, in Gen. 45:6–7 Joseph declares to his brothers, “For two years now there has been famine in the land, and for the next five years there will be no plowing and reaping. But God sent me ahead of you to preserve for you a remnant on earth and to save your lives by a great deliverance.”

The remnant theme surfaces in several other places in the OT. For example, when Elijah complains to God that he is the only faithful one left, God corrects him by pointing out that he has maintained a remnant of seven thousand faithful ones in the midst of national apostasy (1 Kings 19:10–18).

However, it is in the OT prophets that the remnant theme flowers into full blossom. The Hebrew words for “remnant” (she’ar, she’erit) occur over one hundred times in the prophetic books. The prophets proclaim that since Israel/Judah has broken the covenant and refuses to repent and turn back to God, judgment is coming. This judgment takes the form of terrible foreign invasions and destruction, followed by exile from the land. Thus, the northern kingdom, Israel, is destroyed and exiled by the Assyrians in 722 BC, and the southern kingdom, Judah, is destroyed and exiled by the Babylonians in 587/586 BC. Yet the prophets also prophesy hope and restoration beyond the judgment. They declare that many will be destroyed in the judgment, but not all. They prophesy that a remnant will survive, and that God will work through the remnant to bring blessings and restoration. Usually the remnant is identified as those who go into exile but who likewise hope to return to the land. The reestablishment of the remnant is often connected with the inauguration of the messianic age.

New Testament

The remnant theme continues into the NT, but it is not nearly as prominent in the NT as it is in the OT prophets. The term “remnant” does not occur in the Gospels, although the idea is implied in several texts. Thus, in Matt. 7:13–14 Jesus states, “For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” Likewise, in Matt. 22:14 Jesus summarizes his preceding parable by stating, “Many are invited, but few are chosen.”

In Rom. 11 Paul is much more explicit. Not only does he use the term “remnant,” but also in Rom. 11:2–5 he connects his argument specifically to the remnant idea in 1 Kings 19:18 (“I have reserved for myself seven thousand”). Paul is pointing out the similarities between the apostasy in Israel in 1 Kings 19 and the parallel rejection of the Messiah by Israel during Paul’s day. In both cases the nation had rejected God’s word and his salvation plan. But in both situations, even though the nation as a whole has rejected God, God maintains a faithful remnant. Paul also underscores that the remnant is established by God’s grace. Thus, in Rom. 11:5 Paul explains, “So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace.” In the early church, that remnant consisted of Jewish Christians like Paul himself. And to the degree that the church as a whole inherited the promises to Israel, it too could be included in the category of remnant (see again Rom. 11:11–24; cf. 1 Pet. 2:5–10; Rev. 7; 14). Indeed, Paul hopes that the conversion of Gentiles to Christ might make his Jewish compatriots jealous so that they may “take back” their Messiah (in Rom. 11, cf. vv. 11–12 with vv. 25–36). In that case, national Israel would become the spiritual remnant for the very first time in Israel’s history, because “all Israel” would be saved. That is, national Israel and spiritual Israel would be one.

Another way to grasp the idea of the remnant as it unfolds throughout the Bible is to use an hourglass illustration (i.e., wide, narrow, wide). Thus, God had created the world to have fellowship with him, only to have his creation spurn that offer. To rectify this problem, God calls Abraham out from paganism in order that he might make of him a new people, Israel, to worship God and declare him to the nations. Alas, however, Israel in time disobeys God’s law just as the nations of the world had disobeyed God by worshiping other gods. But the purpose of God is not thereby thwarted, for he raises up a remnant, a faithful few who remain true to Yahweh (e.g., Elijah and the later returnees to Israel). However, by the end of the OT the hopes of Israel now rest upon one individual, the Messiah, who will turn the hearts of Jews back to God and who will convert the nations of the earth to the one true God. As it turns out, then, Israel’s rejection of God throughout the OT actually carries along the plan of God as it narrows its focus, culminating in the expectation of the one Messiah. But with the advent of Jesus Christ, the focus of God now widens, beginning with the apostles (the beginnings of the remnant in the NT), expanding to include the church (the replacement of Israel, however temporary that may be), and one day encompassing the world (which will bring the revelation of God full circle).

The LXX rendering (Gk. Raiphan) of the Hebrew word for “Saturn” (kiyyun). Amos accuses the Israelites of worshiping this deity, which contributes to God’s decision to send them into exile (Amos 5:26). Stephen quotes this verse in Acts 7:43.

Tearing one’s clothes as a way of manifesting deep emotion about some troubling phenomenon. Such situations included repenting sin, mourning, expressing outrage over unexpected or unacceptable circumstances, and seeking divine help in an imminent calamity (2 Kings 22:19; 2 Sam. 13:19, 31; Gen. 37:29; Esther 4:1). Priests were barred from making this emotional display, since their garments were sacred vestments (Lev. 10:6; 21:10; but cf. Matt. 26:65 // Mark 14:63). The Writings and the Latter Prophets emphasized inward (rather than outward) grief over sin (Ps. 34:18; Joel 2:13).

The act of repudiating sin and returning to God. Implicit in this is sorrow over the evil that one has committed and a complete turnabout in one’s spiritual direction: turning from idols—anything that wrests away the affection that we owe God—to God (1 Sam. 7:3; 2 Chron. 7:14; Isa. 55:6; 1 Thess. 1:9; James 4:8–10).

Terminology. Two Hebrew word groups are associated with the concept of repentance: nakham and shub. Nakham means “to pant, sigh, groan, howl.” When used with respect to the circumstances of others and the feeling of sympathy that they engender, it refers to compassion. When used in reference to feelings generated by one’s own actions, it means “grief” or “remorse.” In this regard, nakham predominantly has God as the subject. The KJV translates it about forty times as “repent.” While one of the senses of nakham is that of grief over one’s actions, those actions are ethically neutral: it does not presuppose that they are inherently evil. The NIV is correct, therefore, in never translating nakham as “repent” where God is the subject. In most cases where God is its subject, the term highlights God’s compassion and comfort for the afflicted (Isa. 40:1–2; 49:13), or his grief over the dire consequences brought upon or intended for the disobedient and his subsequent commutation of their punishment (Exod. 32:12–14; Judg. 2:18; 2 Sam. 24:16; Jon. 3:10), or his grief over human self-ruinous obstinacy (Gen. 6:6–7; 1 Sam. 15:11). Even in the few cases where nakham has human subjects, it need not always be rendered “repent,” their concern for change of heart notwithstanding (cf. Exod. 13:17; Judg. 21:6).

The concept of repentance is better conveyed by the Hebrew verb shub (“to turn, return back, restore, reverse, bring back”) or its noun form in rabbinic Judaism, teshubah (“repentance”). While shub has many nonreligious uses, its theological significance derives from the sense of either “turning away from God” (apostasy [cf. Hos. 11:7; Jer. 11:10]) or “turning to God” (repentance [cf. 1 Sam. 7:3–4; Hos. 14:1]). Our concern is with the latter sense, which normally would be followed by God’s return to his people (Zech. 1:3; Mal. 3:7).

In the OT, shub is central to the concept of repentance. It is the key term employed in the entreaty to God’s people to return to him (2 Chron. 30:6; Isa. 44:22; Ezek. 14:6). The outward signs of repentance in the OT include fasting, mourning (sometimes while sitting in dust or pouring ashes or dust upon one’s head), rending garments, wearing sackcloth, and offering sacrifices (Lev. 5:5–12; 2 Kings 22:11, 19; Neh. 9:1; Joel 2:12–17). The Israelites became so preoccupied with these outward forms that God told them repeatedly that he no longer had interest in them, but rather sought contrition of the heart (Ps. 34:18; Isa. 1:10–16; 58; 66:2; Joel 2:13).

In the NT, the dominant terms used for repentance are the verb metanoeō and the cognate noun metanoia; the overwhelming majority of these occur in Luke-Acts. These terms are used to express the complete turnaround in one’s way of life, including conversion, faith, and regeneration (Acts 2:28; 3:19; 5:31; 20:21). Occasionally these two terms are complemented by epistrephō to stress the positive side of repentance, that of turning from sin or idols to God (Acts 9:35; 11:21; 26:20).

Elements of repentance. The constituent elements of biblical repentance include the following: (1) A recognition of one’s sin, its damaging effects on life and nature, its affront to God’s word and authority, and its dire consequences (Ezek. 18:4; Rom. 3:23; 8:19–22; Rev. 21:8). (2) Personal outrage and remorse over one’s sin, grief at one’s helplessness, and a deep longing for forgiveness, reconciliation, and restoration. (3) A personal response to God’s grace in choosing a new spiritual direction by breaking with the past and returning to God. This includes confession and renunciation of sin, and prayer for God’s forgiveness (Lev. 5:5; Prov. 28:13; 1 John 1:9). (4) In some circumstances, repentance may require restitution (Exod. 22:1–15; 1 Sam. 12:3; 2 Sam. 12:6; Luke 19:8). (5) At its core, repentance is a rejection of the autonomous life and the surrender of oneself to the lordship of Christ (Jer. 3:22; Mark 8:34–38). (6) The proof of true repentance is the worthy fruit of a changed life (Luke 3:7–14; Eph. 4:17–32; Col. 1:10).

God’s “repenting” (KJV) or “relenting” (NIV) may seem to be in tension with his sovereignty, but it makes sense on several assumptions. God wills to accomplish certain overall ends, but he retains freedom to modify the path that he takes to achieve them, as needed. This in turn assumes that God’s interaction with humanity involves genuine give-and-take. Therefore, God’s way in history may be recounted as a story with surprise twists and turns that are integral to the plot. We may affirm all this and also uphold divine sovereignty if we understand both human prayer and God’s response as divinely ordained means for God to achieve his purposes.

Texts that speak of God relenting indicate that God is adopting a new course of action, a change of mind. In a sense, divine judgment itself represents a kind of “change of mind” from God’s basic, original intent to bless. Whereas judgment is “his strange work . . . his alien task” (Isa. 28:21), undertaken when necessary, God’s character is to be gracious and compassionate, to relent from sending calamity (Isa. 48:9; Joel 2:13), and to bring restoration after judgment (Gen. 9:11; Isa. 54:7–8; Hos. 2).

Terminology. To portray God relenting, the OT often uses the Hebrew word nakham, which carries a strong emotional content and an element of regret. On certain occasions, it refers to profound grief that God feels in reaction to human sin and calamity (Gen. 6:6–7; Judg. 2:18; 1 Sam. 15:35; 2 Sam. 24:16). This is not to suggest that God is making amends for wrongs or has the same kinds of regret for mistakes that humans have. But we should recognize that when nakham is used to speak of God “relenting,” it means something more than a change in the direction of the wind: it involves the heart of God, engaged deeply with his people’s welfare (cf. Hos. 11:8–9). Conversely, the human cry for God to relent is wrung from experiences of deep crisis (Job 6:29; Pss. 90:13; 106:44–45).

Exodus and Jonah. Two classic OT narratives about divine relenting may be contrasted. In Exod. 32 the Israelites’ idolatry with the golden calf is followed by God’s indictment and intention to destroy them. A dramatic turning point comes with Moses’ intercession, in response to which God relents. The book of Jonah turns this sequence on its head. Here the prophet resists his mission of announcing Nineveh’s doom because he fears that its people may repent, which they do (Jon. 3:5–9), and that God may then relent from bringing on them the judgment that he had sent Jonah to announce, which he does (4:2). The book of Jonah portrays the prophet as an antihero, out of step with the compassion and larger purposes of God, unhappy with the freedom of God. But it preserves the link between human repentance for sin and divine relenting from previously announced judgment, as seen in Exod. 32.

The prophets. Through the OT prophets, God wrestles with Israel, announcing one course of action, judgment, while often holding open the possibility of an alternate ending: if Israel repents (Jer. 18:8; 26:3, 13) or if a prophet (Amos 7:1–6) or a king (Jer. 26:19) intercedes, then God may relent. At the end of the day, relenting remains a move that God chooses to make or not to make (Isa. 57:6; Jer. 7:16–20; Ezek. 24:14), in faithfulness to his own purpose (Ps. 7:10–12; Jer. 23:20; 30:24; Zech. 8:14–15).

In the book of Amos, God does both. Amos 1–2 comprises a cycle of seven judgment speeches against Israel’s neighbors, culminating in the eighth, lengthiest judgment speech against Israel. Each speech opens with the formula “For three sins of X, and for four, I will not turn back [my wrath].” Here God declares that he has committed himself to carrying out judgment. With the use of the verb shub (“to turn, turn back”), any implied question of reprieve is answered immediately: the nation’s condemnation is irrevocable. But in 7:1–6 God is twice said to “relent” (nakham) from sending the locusts and fire that he has just shown Amos in visions. Granting stays from specific forms of punishment is not the same as forgiving Israel’s sin, however, and these temporary measures are followed by a reassertion of God’s determination to spare Israel no longer (7:7–9). Moreover, even though Israel’s doom is sealed, Amos can still urge his hearers to repent and turn to God, on the grounds that God may relent—that is, freely respond with mercy and allow some to survive the nation’s fall (5:4–6, 14–15).

Salvation and judgment. This divine freedom, compassion, and judgment that dovetail in OT accounts of God relenting are embodied in Jesus’ announcement of the kingdom, which signals both salvation and its corollary, judgment. Hence come his summons to “Repent and believe the good news” (Mark 1:15) and the apostolic call for hearers to escape their generation’s doom by repentance and faith in Jesus (Acts 2:40).

A Levitical gatekeeper and a son of Shemaiah (1 Chron. 26:7).

A descendant of Ephraim (1 Chron.7:25).

(1) A descendant of David through Zerubbabel (1 Chron. 3:21). (2) A Simeonite leader during Hezekiah’s reign (1 Chron. 4:42). (3) A mighty warrior descended from Issachar (1 Chron. 7:2). (4) A descendant of Saul (1 Chron. 9:43), also called “Raphah” (1 Chron. 8:37). (5) The son of Hur, he was the ruler of a half-district of Jerusalem who repaired a section of the wall after the exile (Neh. 3:9).

A people group also called the “Anakites” (Deut. 2:11 [NRSV: “Anakim”]). They are described as giants (Deut. 3:11) who made Moses’ spies feel like grasshoppers in comparison, and they are associated with the antediluvian Nephilim (Gen. 6:4; Num. 13:33). Thus, the KJV often translates the term as “giants” (e.g., Deut. 2:11; Josh. 12:4).

A people group also called the “Anakites” (Deut. 2:11 [NRSV: “Anakim”]). They are described as giants (Deut. 3:11) who made Moses’ spies feel like grasshoppers in comparison, and they are associated with the antediluvian Nephilim (Gen. 6:4; Num. 13:33). Thus, the KJV often translates the term as “giants” (e.g., Deut. 2:11; Josh. 12:4).

The LXX rendering (Gk. Raiphan) of the Hebrew word for “Saturn” (kiyyun). Amos accuses the Israelites of worshiping this deity, which contributes to God’s decision to send them into exile (Amos 5:26). Stephen quotes this verse in Acts 7:43.

The location of the final Israelite encampment in their exodus from Egypt before they reached Mount Sinai (Exod. 17:1, 8; 19:2; Num. 33:14–15). Here the Israelites’ complaints of thirst resulted in the miraculous provision of water from a rock after Moses struck it with his staff. That grumbling led Moses to call the place “Massah” (“testing”) and “Meribah” (“contention”). At Rephidim the Israelites under Joshua also repelled an Amalekite attack, with success dependent on Moses’ raised hands supported by Aaron and Hur (Exod. 17:8–16). Wadi Feiran is the traditional location dating back to Byzantine times, though Wadi Refayid in southwest Sinai is also commonly suggested.

A reproach is an expression of shame or reviling based on certain behavior or circumstances. In context, reproach may involve one or more of the following: disreputable behavior, circumstances that are shameful or detrimental, a word of reproach, and the dishonor or shame brought by the reproach. The emotional flavor of the word “reproach” is seen in terms used in the contexts of reproach: derision, disgrace, contempt, dishonor, shame, taunt, reviling, curse, terror, proverb, byword. New circumstances may remove a reproach.

• Disrepute. Moral deficiency is cause for a rebuke or accusation. The person who is above reproach, or beyond reproach, is of the highest character, possessing integrity that prevents even an accusation. Many NT uses fall into this category in giving criteria for office (1 Tim. 3:2; 5:14; Titus 1:6).

• Shameful circumstances. In many passages, these result from God’s punishments, but not always. Nahash threatened to gouge out the right eye of each of the men of Jabesh Gilead to bring disgrace (reproach) on Israel (1 Sam. 11:2).

• Spoken word. The spoken reproach may be a confrontational rebuke for disreputable behavior. In most occurrences in the OT it is a derogatory saying, like a byword, mocking the person and his or her circumstances. It may also be a taunt or challenge, as when enemies reproach God (2 Kings 19:4).

• Dishonor or shame. When this aspect is emphasized, the translation is often “disgrace.” It may emphasize the dishonor demonstrated by others or the shame felt by the disgraced person.

In Romans, Paul argues that the necessary precondition for anyone to believe is God’s sovereign election, since the human heart is against God. Faith in Christ confirms that one is elect. The Israelites who hardened their hearts and rejected Jesus did so because of their reprobate hearts, proving that they were nonelect (Rom. 9:11–13). Those whom God has rejected and destined to face sin’s just deserts are reprobate (Rom. 9:18).

Terminology. The modern scientific category of reptiles (air-breathing, cold-blooded vertebrates) has no precise equivalent in the biblical vocabulary. The Hebrews described creatures by the way they moved, as “crawling things” (zakhal [Deut. 32:24; Mic. 7:17]), “creeping things” (remes [Gen. 1:25–26]), and “swarming things” (sherets [Gen. 7:21]). All these terms, which probably overlapped, included both reptiles and small mammals.

Nakhash (e.g., Gen. 3) is the commonest general term for snakes and other reptiles. Rarer terms are tannin (translated “snake” in Exod. 7:9, but more usually meaning a mythical “dragon”) and sarap (used, on its own or qualifying nakhash, of the fiery serpents in Num. 21:6, 8; Isa. 14:29; 30:6). In Greek, herpeton (Acts 10:12; 11:6; Rom. 1:23; James 3:7) includes snakes and lizards, while the generic word for snake is ophis (e.g., Matt. 7:10).

Besides these general terms, Scripture mentions the following: (1) the crocodile (liwyatan) found in Egypt and Israel and sometimes portrayed in poetry as a mythical monster (Job 3:8; 41:1; Pss. 74:14; 104:26; Isa. 27:1); (2) a variety of lizards, probably including geckos, skinks, and chameleons (Lev. 11:29, 30; Prov. 30:28); (3) a variety of poisonous snakes, including the cobra, or asp (Deut. 32:33; Rom. 3:13), and the viper, or adder (Isa. 59:5; Acts 28:3).

Although tortoises are common in the Middle East, the KJV translation of the Hebrew word tsab as “tortoise” in Lev. 11:29 almost certainly is wrong. However, since at least eighty kinds of reptile are found in Israel, precise identifications beyond this are difficult.

Reptiles in the Bible. The snake is an important image in Scripture. It is a snake that tempts Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:1; 2 Cor. 11:3), and in the first promise of salvation God says that the seed of woman will crush the snake’s head (Gen. 3:15). From that moment, the snake is condemned to crawl on its belly and eat dust (Gen. 3:14; Isa. 65:25).

All such crawling creatures were unclean in OT law (Lev. 11:29–31). Although some Middle Eastern snakes are nonpoisonous, the OT always portrays snakes as harmful as well as unclean (Deut. 8:15; 32:24, 33; Job 20:14, 16; Eccles. 10:8, 11; Isa. 30:6; Amos 5:19; Matt. 7:10; Luke 11:11). Because the venom was associated with the snake’s tongue, the snake was a symbol of treacherous, lying speech as well as of physical danger (Gen. 49:17; Pss. 58:4; 140:3; Prov. 23:32; Isa. 14:29; Jer. 8:17; 51:34; Matt. 23:33; Rev. 9:19), shrewdness (Matt. 10:16), and degradation (Mic. 7:17). For snakes to be rendered harmless was a sign of divine intervention (Ps. 91:13) and of the messianic age (Isa. 11:8; Luke 10:19; Mark 16:18). Paul and John identify the snake in Eden with Satan and look forward to his total destruction in the last days (Rom. 16:20; Rev. 12:9–17; 20:2–3).

Snakes feature three times in biblical miracles. First, Aaron’s rod was transformed into a serpent that, when Pharaoh’s magicians replicated the feat, devoured the magicians’ serpents (Exod. 7:10–15; cf. 4:3–4). This would have impressed Pharaoh all the more because the snake was a symbol of the pharaoh’s power. Second, when God sent poisonous snakes to punish the Israelites, who repented, God told Moses to set up a bronze snake on a pole; anyone who looked at the bronze snake (which only much later became an object of idolatry) was saved (Num. 21:6–9; 2 Kings 18:4). This prefigured the cross, on which Christ became a curse for us (John 3:14; 1 Cor. 10:9; Gal. 3:10). Third, Paul was bitten by a snake and suffered no harm (Acts 28:3–6).

A circulating report of one’s actions that are taken to indicate character. Proverbs 25:9–10 warns against betraying a confidence because such action would result in a bad report that one can never escape. Faithfulness, however, results in a good report (e.g., Josh. 6:27; Esther 9:4). According to the OT, reputation motivates God. In Exod. 32:9–14 Moses convinces God to change his mind concerning the destruction of the Israelites by appealing to the report that such an action would generate among the Egyptians. Reputation is also important in the NT. A good reputation is necessary for an overseer of God’s church (1 Tim. 3:7). Yet a reputation may not always indicate upright character (Rev. 3:1; cf. 1 Cor. 4:5).

A city founded by Nimrod in Assyria, between Nineveh and Calah (Gen. 10:12). It possibly is located in early ruins of Hamam Ali on the right bank of the Tigris River, eight miles south of Nineveh.

A place to store large amounts of water. Some reservoirs were built aboveground, where the public could access them. Cisterns, which are plaster-lined holding tanks, were built belowground. Rainwater was diverted into cisterns from roofs of homes. Isaiah mentions a reservoir in one of his sermons (Isa. 22:11).

(1) A descendant of Ephraim (1 Chron. 7:25). (2) A Canaanite god mentioned in the tablets found at Ras Shamra/Ugarit but not mentioned in the Bible.

A common translation of the Hebrew word bedolakh (see esp. KJV, ESV, NASB; NIV: “resin”), which occurs twice in the OT, both times in the Pentateuch. In Gen. 2:12 bdellium is identified as a stone, and it is named in conjunction with gold and onyx as provided in the land of Havilah. In Num. 11:7 bdellium’s color is used to describe the color of wilderness manna.

Terminology used in the KJV to denote partiality. The NT repeatedly affirms that God is not a respecter of persons; that is, he does not show partiality based on worldly standards or appearances. Peter recognized this when God chose to pour out his Holy Spirit on Gentile believers, not merely Jewish believers (Acts 10:34). God will judge all people, including Christians, with impartiality (Rom. 2:11; Eph. 6:9; Col. 3:25; 1 Pet. 1:17). Since God is not a respecter of persons, those who serve him should not display partiality (Lev. 19:15; Deut. 16:19; Prov. 28:21; James 2:1, 9).

Leisure time offers a respite from work, those essential duties of life such as paid employment and maintaining a household, to pursue other activities. Such nonobligatory pursuits range from entertainment to fine art, from peaceful relaxation to physical activity.

From the beginning, humankind was intended to work (Gen. 1:28; 2:15), but God also set apart one day per week for his creatures to share in his divine rest (Gen. 2:2–3; Exod. 20:8–11). This weekly rest should bring to mind God’s creation and the final rest in the age to come (Heb. 4:9–11). Although leisure time and Sabbath observance are not identical, both are opportunities to give thanks, worship, and put hope in God. They also refresh and enrich earthly life.

Indeed, every good thing is a gift from the Father (James 1:17), including time off from daily duties. How one uses leisure time is thus a matter of stewardship, much like one’s use of money and working time (cf. Matt. 25:14–30). Thus, although the Bible does not discuss playing sports or writing poetry, it does proclaim Christ as Lord over all spheres of life. Therefore “whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God” (1 Cor. 10:31).

An act of restoration in which compensation is given to account for a loss by the person responsible for that loss. As an integral part of community life, restitution protects against the loss of one’s property due to a neighbor’s carelessness or treachery. The Hebrew word is usually a verb and thus is translated “make restitution,” with the root of this word (shlm) carrying the connotation of making something or someone complete.

As a part of economic life, restitution is prescribed for directly or indirectly causing someone else to lose his or her possessions. A thief must make restitution (Exod. 22:3). The person who digs a pit and leaves it is responsible for a neighbor’s ox or donkey that falls into it (21:33–34; cf. 22:6). When it is not clear who is responsible for the loss, the judges must decide (22:7–15). If the responsible party cannot be determined or found, then no retribution is required. Requiring retribution falsely would itself require retribution to the falsely accused. The function of retribution is to help protect one’s livelihood (livestock, crops) from loss due to the carelessness or spitefulness of another person in the community who would otherwise have no responsibility to help.

Restitution aims to restore what was lost through equal replacement (an ox for an ox in Exod. 21:36) and can involve matching value monetarily (21:34). However, in the case of theft, restitution is to be higher than equal value. Such cases may involve giving back double, quadruple, or sometimes quintuple of what was taken (22:1, 7), even to the point of selling oneself to pay the debt (22:3). In this way, restitution may also function as a deterrent, especially against theft. Restitution is not the same as retribution, as the aim is not to punish but rather to deter harmful actions and foster restoration between both parties. For Jesus’ response to the retributive use of Lev. 24:19–20 (eye for eye, tooth for tooth), see Matt. 5:38–39.

In Num. 5:5–8 and Lev. 6:1–7, acts against one’s neighbor are counted as acts against God, thus requiring an additional restitution, one-fifth of the value of the lost property, to be given to the priest along with a guilt offering. In this way, restitution operates not only to restore the owner of lost property, but also to restore the guilty party before God.

Christ’s resurrection is the foundational event for the Christian faith. Paul goes so far as to say that if Christ did not rise, then the Christian faith is futile and Christians are to be pitied more than all others (1 Cor. 15:17–19). Resurrection’s climaxing position in all four Gospel narratives yields the same understanding. Christ came not merely to die, as some claim, but to conquer death. Resurrection gives everything that Christ did before his death an “of God” significance, and it establishes everything that follows as a guarantee of God’s eschatological promises. Without the resurrection, Jesus would have been just another “prophet hopeful” who died a tragic peasant death in Jerusalem. However, as it is, evidenced by the resurrection, he is the Son of God. According to the NT, the resurrection is the triumphant cry that God indeed did come to visit his creation and conquer the power of sin and death.

Old Testament

Resurrection hope is poorly attested by the OT, especially in earlier sections. References are made to death that seem to indicate that the dead have not ceased to exist, but such passages refer (at best) to death as a shadowy, nonlife existence (Job 26:5; Ps. 88:10; Ezek. 32:21). When early OT texts suggest that certain individuals experience everlasting life, they do so by escaping death altogether. Enoch (Gen. 5:24) walked with God and was simply taken away, while God dramatically picked up Elijah in a chariot of fire (2 Kings 2:11). Saul’s attempt at Endor to reawaken Samuel from death to receive his counsel (1 Sam. 28:3–14) speaks more to the superstition and disobedience of Saul than it does to Israel’s faith in life after death.

Some OT prophetic texts hint at a corporate restoration of life beyond the grave. It is a promise not of resurrection from death to life for the individual but of God’s unceasing love for corporate Israel that ultimately results in the redemption of his people from the snares of death (Hos. 6:1–3; 13:14). Although these texts are difficult to separate from Israel’s vision of postexilic national restoration, as in the vision of the valley of dry bones (Ezek. 37:1–14), they do indicate a growing sense of hope that God will restore Israel to renewed life in his presence after death. A similar trend may lie behind Job 14:14, where Job, after affirming the finality of individual death (14:12), still raises the question of a possible life after death. The basis for this notion rests on the affirmation that the living God, Job’s gracious redeemer, has power over death and will allow Job to see life after death (Job 19:25–26; cf. Ps. 16:10).

Daniel 12:2, which on the surface looks like a full-fledged teaching on individual resurrection, still falls short as a beneficial comparison to the teaching of Jesus. Although the Pharisees (along with a number of modern interpreters looking for OT foundations for individual resurrection) later used this as a proof text for individual resurrection, its context (Dan. 11) clearly suggests a struggle between nations, to which God eventually will reveal his eternal judgment. God will vindicate his people. Notwithstanding, OT language of eternal awakening to a new reality, good or bad, opens the door for further reflection on God’s eternal purpose and how it relates to human experience beyond death.

Intertestamental Period

The speculations of the intertestamental period portray a vast array of philosophical influences that affected the thinking of Second Temple Judaism. The conservative Sadducees, who may have accepted only the Torah as Scripture, understood Sheol (the state or abode of the dead) to be a place of unending sleep and thus denied resurrection (cf. Sir. 17:27–28; 30:17; Acts 23:8). Other groups, such as the Pharisees and the Essenes, were to a greater or lesser extent influenced by Hellenistic thinking on the relationship between spirit and matter. The lack of unity among these groups, especially the Pharisees, created a plethora of understandings concerning resurrection. Some, influenced by the Platonic idea that the soul/spirit is immortal and will be released at the death of the body, turned reflections on the afterlife into an issue of immortality (4 Macc. 14:5; 18:23). Others seem to have affirmed a physical resurrection but restricted it to either Israel or a righteous remnant thereof. This latter perspective easily connected to the view that all would be raised, the unrighteous for punishment, the righteous for reward and bliss.

It proves impossible, therefore, to determine to what extent Christian reflections during the first century influenced Jewish writers rather than vice versa. Sociologically speaking, the early Christians were one of the many parties of Judaism developing during that period. As the Gospels seem to suggest, they interacted, maybe especially, with the Pharisees.

New Testament

The OT’s relative silence on the issue of resurrection stands in stark contrast to the central position that it holds in the NT. All four Gospels build their narrative portrayal of Jesus’ ministry toward this climaxing event, and Jesus himself argued against the view of the Sadducees (Mark 12:18–27). Beyond the Gospel narratives, Paul makes resurrection the very heart of the Christian faith (1 Cor. 15); Hebrews understands resurrection as part of Christian elementary teaching (Heb. 6:1–2); James plays on the word “raise” as he explains the connection between faith and strength of life (James 5:15); Peter sees resurrection as the basis for Christian hope (1 Pet. 1:3); Revelation details the quality of the resurrected life (Rev. 21–22). In short, every part of the NT affirms the reality of a resurrection after death. It is the climactic evidence that God’s kingdom now dwells among people. God brings life; death will no longer have the last word.

The Gospels. The Gospels give four accounts of raisings from the dead. Strictly speaking, these are not resurrections but resuscitations. The people in question are not raised to eternal life but rather are brought back to life in their historical circumstances; they will later die again. The Gospels’ intertwining of the raising of Jairus’s daughter with the healing of the hemorrhaging woman (Mark 5:21–43 pars.) underscores the conceptual connection between life and God’s presence. First-century Judaism had come up bankrupt and could do nothing to help a woman whose bleeding made worship of God impossible. Now, however, life could be restored after death. Even the leader of the worship center, who could do nothing to help this woman, now saw his own daughter raised from the dead.

The raising of the widow’s son from Nain (Luke 7:11–17) similarly indicates that the days of the prophet Elijah had returned (1 Kings 17:8–24). God was again visiting his people and bringing life after death. Most spectacularly, Lazarus’s raising after four days in the grave (John 11:1–44) speaks directly to God’s power to bring life out of death in connection with OT understandings of the afterlife. The emphasis on the four days in the grave, along with Jesus’ pronouncement of himself as “resurrection and life” and his application of God’s revelatory name (“I am”) to himself, make this event stand out as anticipating what is soon to come in full. The same holds true in the unleashing of power at Jesus’ death, when graves spring open and the dead are raised (Matt. 27:51–53).

Paul’s letters. Paul’s teaching on resurrection anchors in eschatology, or vice versa. The reality and finality of death, introduced by Adam’s disobedience, are now overcome by Christ through his resurrection (1 Cor. 15:21–22). Christ’s resurrection evidences that God has ended death’s reign; it heralds the imminent coming of the end, a time when all who belong to Christ will be raised in like manner, and death will be no more (15:23–24).

Although at times Paul uses the language of body, soul, and spirit, he never falls prey to a Platonic dualism that separates body from soul, claiming that only the body dies while the soul remains immortal (1 Tim. 6:15b–16a). Rather, following Hebraic thinking, he understands resurrection as total transformation of the whole person, comparing it to what happens to a seed put in the ground. It must die before something completely new comes up (1 Cor. 15:36). The promise of resurrection is the promise that the death-marked human who is buried will, at the time of resurrection, be transformed and suited to live eternally in God’s presence. What is now perishable will become imperishable (1 Cor. 15:42–44). To Paul, this is not about getting rid of matter (the body) that is created by God, but about Christ’s restoration of what Adam destroyed (1 Cor. 15:49). It is the same understanding expressed in Rev. 21:1–5a, where John prophesies the transformation of both heaven and earth when God reestablishes his covenant relationship with his people.

Summary. Although the Gospels’ presentations of Jesus’ resurrection vary in some detail (probably due to purpose and audience), all of them treat the event as the theological centerpiece of the Gospel narrative. The resurrection story launches God’s eschatological work and opens the door, as the postresurrection appearances show, for a connection between the Jesus story and the church story. It is the foundation both for the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18–20) and for Pentecost (Luke 24:49). All people of all nations can now meet the living Christ.

Retribution refers to “giving what is due,” usually in response to evil. Retribution is an important theological doctrine whose significance is belied by scant use of the term in English translations (ESV 2×; NIV 6×; NRSV 9×). Retribution is driven by the theological conviction that moral order is built into the fabric of the world (Ps. 7:14–16; Prov. 26:27). This moral compass is guaranteed by God’s oversight, meting out justice in judgment and rewards to the righteous, not only on the human-human level, but also on the divine-human level (2 Cor. 9:6; Gal. 6:7). This biblical equation assures that (1) life is not overwhelmed by moral chaos, (2) human actions affect the future, (3) the world is morally uniform, and (4) human revenge is to be avoided (Lev. 19:17–18; Matt. 16:27; Rom. 12:19). With the human community in view, God’s commands are intended to instruct and guide. Not surprisingly, address of retribution is found throughout biblical literature: legal (Deut. 28), narrative (Num. 16), poetic (Pss. 18:20; 94:15), sapiential (Prov. 11:24–25), and prophetic (Hab. 2:2–20).

This poetic justice pervades the OT in the judgment and exile of Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:8–24), Cain’s sentence and blood revenge (Gen. 4:15, 24), and the worldwide flood and annihilation (Gen. 6–9) (cf. Exod. 21:20–21; Deut. 30:15–20; Josh. 7; Amos 3:14–15; Mic. 2:1–3). Such stories reveal a sovereign God acting as an external agent who exacts punishment in light of his intentions for creation. For Israel, retribution is the exercise of Yahweh’s legal rights in an attempt to restore covenant fellowship (Lev. 26:40–45). Although serious tensions exist—sometimes the wicked prosper and the innocent suffer—this does not alter the grand scheme of Scripture (Job 33; Jer. 12:1–4). In some scenarios, only the next lifetime will fully bring justice and reward (Ps. 49:5–15; Dan. 12:2; Matt. 25:31–46; Rev. 22:1–5). Deep wisdom, however, embraces mystery and understands the limits of human agency (Gen. 50:19–20; James 1:5).

While the notion of consequence may be too strong, the concept of correspondence is helpful for understanding the concept of retribution. God’s judgments reveal (1) a correspondence between act and effect, (2) accountability to known law, (3) a debt requiring resolve/restitution, and (4) punishment that reenacts elements of the sin itself. God’s roles as divine warrior, judge, and king proclaim his universal rule and preserve it from all who would mock or defy his royal authority (Gen. 3:14–19; Deut. 7:10; 1 Sam. 24:19; 2 Sam. 12:11–12; Ps. 149; Prov. 15:25; Mic. 5:15; 1 Cor. 16:22; Gal. 1:8–9; 2 Thess. 1:5–10).

God’s reasons for retribution center on disobedience and injustice, while his purposes are essentially restorative and developmental. Retribution is an application of God’s holiness that purifies the world for his kingdom of peace. In this way, vengeance and deliverance work together (Nah. 1:2, 7). Paradoxically, retribution gives hope to fallen humanity for sin acknowledged and unacknowledged, anticipating the triumph of righteousness (Ps. 58:11). Retribution grants rationality and stability to humanity, promotes closure in crisis, and fosters hope—a forerunner of the ultimate judgment before the throne of God the King.

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

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

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

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

Reasons for Controversy

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

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

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

Jesus’ Return and the Tribulation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Resurrection and the Final Judgment

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

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

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

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

The Millennium

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heaven and Hell

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

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

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

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

The Benefits of Eschatology

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

A descendant of Shem, the son of Peleg, the father of Serug, and an ancestor of Abraham and Jesus (Gen. 11:18–21; 1 Chron. 1:25; Luke 3:35).

Reuben was the eldest son of Jacob and Leah. In Hebrew his name is a wordplay on “the Lord has seen my misery” (Gen. 29:32), referring to the troubles that Leah felt at not being loved by her husband. Jacob removed his privileges as firstborn son because Reuben slept with Rachel’s maidservant Bilhah (Gen. 35:22; 49:3–4). When Jacob’s ten sons conspired to kill their brother Joseph, Reuben tried to protect Joseph by suggesting that he be placed in a cistern. Reuben was greatly upset when his brothers sold Joseph to Midianite merchants (Gen. 37:22, 29).

The tribe descended from Reuben, eldest son of Jacob and Leah. Moses gave permission for the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh to take as their inheritance the land east of the Jordan River, as long as they assisted the other tribes in conquering Canaan (Num. 32). When these three groups built an altar, the rest of Israel approached them to do battle, until it became clear that they were setting up not an alternative place of worship but rather a place of remembrance (Josh. 22).

(1) The son of Esau with his wife Basemath (Gen. 36:4, 10, 13, 17; 1 Chron. 1:35, 37). (2) The father or/and perhaps the grandfather of Zipporah, the wife of Moses, also known as Jethro (Exod. 2:18; Num. 10:29). (See also Jethro.) (3) An ancestor of Meshullam, a Benjamite who lived in Jerusalem during the postexilic period (1 Chron. 9:8). (4) The father of Eliasaph, a Gadite who was a leader at the time of Moses (Num. 2:14 [cited as “Deuel” in many manuscripts; cf. Num. 1:14]).

The concubine of Nahor, the brother of Abraham (Gen. 22:24).

God is the all-powerful, all-knowing, morally perfect creator of the universe; and we are his creatures—no less, but also no more. Thus, an unimaginable distance must exist between God and us; and this fact has led some theologians to despair of knowing anything about him for sure, not even that he actually has these attributes of deity. It might seem, furthermore, that some biblical texts encourage such a view. Psalm 92:5 recognizes the distance: “How great are your works, O Lord, how profound your thoughts!” Psalm 145:3 says that “no one can fathom” God’s greatness. According to Ps. 147:5, “Great is our Lord and mighty in power; his understanding has no limit.” In Ps. 139:6, David tries to comprehend God’s perfect insight and concludes, “Such knowledge is too wonderful for me, too lofty for me to attain.” The doxology of Rom. 11:33–36 exults in the uniqueness of God: “Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!” In Isa. 55:9, God says, “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts higher than your thoughts.” Based on these passages and others, and knowing what the difference between creator and creature must generally imply, one might suspect that we can know nothing of substance about God.

In fact, however, the biblical writers tell a different story, being cautiously optimistic about theology’s prospects. On the one hand, they note our creaturely limitations and God’s transcendence, as seen above. We cannot fully comprehend our Creator. We never will, not even through the eons of eternity. God will always have something more to show us about himself, more that we can learn and adore. In that sense, the biblical writers are cautious about what theology can grasp. On the other hand, we must be able to learn some things about God; otherwise, the Scriptures themselves would not exist, since they tell us about God and much else besides. Divine omnipotence, therefore, includes the ability to produce in us adequate theological understanding. We always lean on God, and no one understands him at all apart from his initiative. He remains sovereign over this event, as with any other. But God has made himself known in two general ways, according to Scripture.

General and Special Revelation

First, the biblical writers expect each of us to grasp something of God’s nature, based on what is called “general revelation.” General revelation operates in a broadcasted way, so to speak, relying upon commonplace experience and the latter’s God-given ability to make us aware of his existence and nature. We all see the heavens that “declare the glory of God” (Ps. 19:1). Paul argues that every person can detect the “invisible qualities” of God, his “eternal power and divine nature,” in what he has created, so that we have no excuse for decadent theology and behavior (Rom. 1:20). The law of God is “written on [our] hearts” (Rom. 2:15), so that we grasp what we owe to him and each other. Even though God has not spoken directly to every nation, “he has not left himself without testimony”; he has shown all people “kindness by giving [them] rain from heaven and crops in their seasons” (Acts 14:17). We can learn some things about God from these sources given to us, and thus we are accountable for right conduct in relationship to them. However, general revelation lacks the detail and assurance of what is called “special revelation.”

Special revelation differs from general revelation in having a target audience. It conveys information about God, human beings, and our world that cannot be deduced from everyday, highly accessible experience. Jesus suffered for our sins. Our trust in his death on the cross will save us. God is a Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, though there is one God. Christ will return in power and glory to judge all nations. We can think of God as our heavenly Father, a morally perfect deity who cares about the individual person. The Holy Spirit helps us in our weakness as we wonder how to pray. God is always sovereign, even over the wicked deeds of human beings and the suffering that they cause. These are essential points of Christian doctrine. Yet we cannot substantiate any of them by carefully observing ourselves, our world, or the facts of history. Indeed, sometimes our own thoughts lead us to resist these claims because they entail great mysteries. One can easily (but wrongly) equate “I do not understand this” with “This is false.” Thus, our knowledge of these doctrines rests upon God’s willingness to speak and our readiness to hear what he says with humility and trust, without having all our questions answered. The vehicle for this latter kind of knowledge is called “special revelation.”

All revelation is “special,” simply because we can learn nothing about God apart from his self-disclosure. However, theologians use the technical term “special revelation” to capture the idea that God has revealed some matters of doctrine only to specific people, with the expectation that they will preach these truths to others as he requires them to do. These doctrinal matters include the claims given above concerning some aspects of God’s nature, his attitude toward human beings, the plan of salvation, and so forth. Thus, the Bible is special revelation par excellence; likewise, the preaching of prophets, Jesus, and then his chosen apostles (to list them in chronological order) is special revelation. Of course, since we do not have access to prophetic teaching and the life and words of Christ apart from Scripture, the latter is our sole source of special revelation. We cannot now see and hear Jesus as his first-century observers did, but we encounter him as the incarnate Word through the inerrant written word of Scripture. Theology, therefore, concerns what the Bible says about God, humanity, Christ, and so forth, and it looks to general revelation, if at all, merely to corroborate or illustrate what Scripture substantiates. Likewise, the promises of God to bless the preaching of his truth attach to special revelation rather than to what one might glean from other sources (Isa. 55:11).

The Bible as Special Revelation

The Bible stands alone in revealing who God is and showing what pleases him. Its exact contents were ordained by God through inspiration. Scripture is “God-breathed” (2 Tim. 3:16), having been produced when people “spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Pet. 1:21). Consequently, even though prophecy occurs in NT churches (1 Cor. 14), it is not received there as the unchallengeable teaching of OT prophets, Jesus, or his apostles. Rather, observers are to weigh carefully what prophets say (1 Cor. 14:29). John expressly warns of false prophecy in the churches: “Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1). These facts should lead one to be cautious in using such phrases as “God told me that . . . ” and in urging other Christians to act upon anyone’s private sensations of being led by the Spirit, absent any objective reasons for doing so. Prophecy given by the Holy Spirit today should involve the application of biblical truth to present challenges and opportunities. The same principle applies to subjective promptings from the Holy Spirit. They should apply received doctrine without revising it and must always be tested by the church.

The sixty-six books of the Bible were written by real people, living in concrete historical settings, and using ordinary language. Yet they intend to speak of heavenly things and of a holy God. Consequently, theologians face the challenge of “seeing through” the Bible’s figurative statements and artistic forms to the truths they convey, but without landing in unhelpful abstractions. Most people who read the book of Exodus assume that God does not have an actual “arm” to outstretch (6:6) or a “face” that one may not see and live (33:23). But Moses chose these words to reveal something about God, and thus we have to ask how far the analogy goes and to what degree it reaches down to our human level of understanding. We know that God must somehow “talk down” to us, using our own language, even as he gives us historical and theological claims having real content. Balancing these two realities—the “otherness” of God and the earthiness of the written, human word that reveals him—is the delicate task of exegesis.

The interpreter must also negotiate the various kinds or genres of literature found in the Bible, especially the ones that seem most alien to our own ways of communicating. Our own documents do not (usually) feature the elaborate images of the book of Revelation or the structures of Hebrew poetry found in the Psalter, and we do not live in the first-century world. Therefore, to read the Scriptures correctly, we must become culturally literate, so that we see our texts through ancient Near Eastern and Greco-Roman eyes. These fields are studied with care, based on the assumption that the Bible’s forms of literature were customary for their own time. They were not entirely strange to their original audiences. Thus, they can become less strange to us; and since the Bible is fully human as well as fully divine, reading its pages through the appropriate cultural lenses will give us access to what the Spirit says to the churches.

Human Limitations

An analysis of general and special revelation should consider the so-called noetic effects of sin—that is, the effects that sin has upon our ability to reason and to learn. Human beings were created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26–27), having the capacity to interact with their Creator. They bear some “family resemblance” to God, notwithstanding their materiality and finitude. But when Adam and Eve sinned, they corrupted themselves and their descendants, so much so that Paul can describe them as being enslaved to sin and death (Rom. 5–6). Since the fall, the biblical writers have proclaimed the blindness of human beings to the things of God. All people are “under the power of sin,” and “there is no one who understands” (Rom. 3:9–11). In Eph. 2:1–3 Paul describes unrepentant sinners as being “dead in [their] transgressions and sins,” so that they follow carnal “desires and thoughts.” Even someone as naturally qualified as Nicodemus fails to see who Jesus is apart from the sovereign power of the Holy Spirit (John 3:1–15). Fallen human beings do not see what they ought to see and grasp what they ought to grasp. They can even say in their hearts, “There is no God” (Ps. 14:1).

Human beings do not have 20/20 intellectual vision, and our desires are corrupted. Consequently, we do not benefit from God’s self-revelation as Adam did, not to mention the glorified Christian who knows fully (1 Cor. 13:12). In some cases, the sinner does not want to acknowledge the disclosures of God and thus does not perceive them. Habitual sin and doc-trin-al innovation can “sear” the conscience as with an iron, making “hypocritical liars” impervious to sound teaching (1 Tim. 4:2). Although the heavens declare the glory of God, and although “in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son” (Heb. 1:2), fallen human beings will not grasp these truths. Yet they remain accountable to God because the disabling wounds of sin are self-inflicted. Even the demons of Scripture, who identify Jesus accurately, recoil from what they clearly perceive (Matt. 8:29; Mark 3:11; 5:7), as do the Pharisees who attribute the Spirit’s work to Beelzebul (Matt. 12:22–32). In these cases, the difficulty is not cognitive but affective. Character becomes intellectual destiny.

The world abounds with religious viewpoints, each one claiming to reveal how it works and what constitutes the good life. It is also unlikely that each of them contains only false statements and no true ones. On the contrary, the major rivals to Christianity gain some converts, we may assume, by including fractions of truth and addressing some perceived human needs. Islam is not wrong in its rejection of polytheism and idolatry. Buddhism is right in its belief that suffering raises key philosophical questions. However, we should avoid saying that God has actually revealed something of his nature through these sources, as if their existence were a subset of general revelation. Paul may note the Athenians’ religiosity and illustrate a point by quoting one of their poets (Acts 17:22, 28), but his overall polemic makes it clear that he views their ideas as mistaken responses to general revelation. Similar remarks would apply to cults that mix some orthodoxy, based on Scripture, with enough error to pervert the whole. God is not speaking indistinctly through them; rather, they are mishandling what he has said through the biblical writers. In this sense, therefore, the Bible stands alone as the unique word of God.

The final book of the Bible is known by its opening line: “The revelation of Jesus Christ” (1:1 ESV, NRSV, KJV). This phrase could indicate a “revelation about Jesus Christ” (the main character), or a “revelation from Jesus Christ” (the primary giver of the message to John; so NIV), or, as many believe, some of both.

In powerful language and vivid imagery, Revelation presents the conclusion to God’s grand story of salvation, in which he defeats evil, reverses the curse of sin, restores creation, and lives forever among his people. Although the details are often difficult to understand, the main idea of Revelation is clear: God is in control and will successfully accomplish his purposes. In the end, God wins. As a transformative vision, Revelation empowers its readers/listeners to persevere faithfully in a fallen world until their Lord returns.

Genre and Historical Context

Genre. Revelation is best understood in light of its literary genre and its historical context. The literary genre of Revelation—letter, prophecy, and apocalyptic literature—explains much of the strangeness of the book. The entire book is a single letter to seven churches in Asia Minor (note the letter greeting in 1:4–5 and the benediction in 22:21). John is commanded to write what he sees and send it to the seven churches (1:11). A letter to seven churches is in reality a letter to the whole church, since the number “seven” symbolizes wholeness or completeness in Revelation. NT letters were intended to be read aloud to the gathering of Christians, and the same is true of Revelation. The book opens with a blessing on the one who reads the letter aloud and on those who listen (1:3) and closes with a stern warning to anyone (reader or listener) who changes the book (22:18–19). Like other NT letters, Revelation also addresses a specific situation. For this reason, any approach to Revelation that ignores the situation faced by the seven churches will fail to grasp its central message. Many say that the message of Revelation extends beyond the first century, but it certainly does not ignore its first audience.

Revelation is also a letter that is prophetic. In both the opening (1:3) and the closing (22:7, 10, 18–19), the book is described as a “prophecy” (cf. 19:10). In 22:9 the angel identifies John as a prophet: “I am a fellow servant with you and with your fellow prophets.” As a prophetic book in line with OT prophetic books, Revelation contains both prediction about the future and proclamation about God’s will for the present, with emphasis falling on the latter.

Finally, Revelation is a prophetic letter that is apocalyptic. In the opening phrase, “the revelation of Jesus Christ,” the term “revelation” is a translation of the Greek term apokalypsis, meaning “to unveil” or “to reveal” what has been hidden. Most believe that apocalyptic literature grew out of Hebrew prophecy. The OT books of Daniel and Zechariah are often associated with apocalyptic literature, and there were many Jewish apocalypses written during the time between the Testaments (e.g., 1–2 Enoch, 2–3 Baruch, 4 Ezra).

In apocalyptic literature there is a revelation from God to some well-known human figure through a heavenly intermediary. God promises to intervene in human history, to defeat evil, and to establish his rightful rule. Such is the case with Revelation, which assumes a situation where God’s people are threatened by hostile powers. God is portrayed as sovereign, and he promises to intervene soon to destroy evil. Through bizarre visions and imagery common to apocalyptic literature, those who hear Revelation are transported to another world for much-needed heavenly perspective. As the hearers move outside their hopeless circumstances and see God winning the war against evil, their perspective is reshaped, and they are empowered to persevere faithfully. They are simultaneously called to live holy and blameless lives as they worship the one, true God.

Historical context. Along with understanding the literary genre of Revelation, one must grasp its historical context in order to read the book responsibly. Revelation itself describes a historical situation where some Christians are suffering for their faith with the real possibility that the suffering could become more intense and widespread. John himself has been exiled to the island of Patmos because of his witness for Jesus (1:9). Antipas, a Christian in Pergamum, has been put to death for his faith (2:13). In his message to the church at Smyrna, Jesus indicates that they should not be surprised by what they are about to suffer (2:10). The book also includes several references to pagan powers shedding the blood of God’s people (6:10; 16:6; 17:6; 18:24; 19:2). Revelation addresses a situation in which pagan political power has formed a partnership with false religion. Those who claim to follow Christ are facing mounting pressure to conform to this ungodly partnership at the expense of loyalty to Christ.

The two primary possibilities for the date of Revelation are a time shortly after the death of Nero (AD 68–69) or a date near the end of Domitian’s reign (AD 95). Although there is solid evidence for both dates, the majority opinion at present favors a date during the reign of Domitian, when persecution threatened to spread across the Roman Empire. The imperial cult (i.e., the worship of the Roman emperor) was a powerful force to be reckoned with primarily because it united religious, political, social, and economic elements into a single force. As chapters 2–3 indicate, not every Christian was remaining faithful in this difficult environment. Some were compromising in order to avoid religious or economic persecution. Revelation has a pointed message for those who are standing strong as well as for those who are compromising, and this central message ties into the overall purpose of the book.

Purpose and Interpretation

The overall purpose of Revelation is to comfort those who are facing persecution and to warn those who are compromising with the world system. During times of oppression, the righteous suffer and the wicked seem to prosper. This raises the question “Who is Lord?” Revelation says that Jesus is Lord in spite of how things appear, and he will return soon to establish his eternal kingdom. Those facing persecution find hope through a renewed perspective, and those who are compromising are warned to repent. Revelation’s goal is to transform the audience to follow Jesus faithfully.

There are five main theories about how Revelation should be interpreted: preterist, historicist, futurist, idealist, and eclectic. The preterist theory views Revelation as relating only to the time in which John lived rather than to any future period. John communicates to first-century readers how God plans to deliver them from the wickedness of the Roman Empire. The historicist theory argues that Revelation gives an overview of the major movements of church history from the first century until the return of Christ. The futurist theory claims that most of Revelation (usually chaps. 4–22) deals with a future time just before the end of history. The idealist theory maintains that Revelation is a symbolic portrayal of the ongoing conflict between good and evil. Revelation offers timeless spiritual truths to encourage Christians of all ages. The eclectic theory combines the strengths of several of the other theories (e.g., a message to the original audience, a timeless spiritual message, and some future fulfillment), while avoiding their weaknesses.

Outline and Structure

There have been many attempts to understand how Revelation is organized. Some see a threefold structure based on 1:19:

What you have seen (past) (1:1–20)

What is now (present) (2:1–3:21)

What will take place later (future) (4:1–22:21)

Others see the book organized around seven dramatic scenes with interludes occurring throughout:

Prologue (1:1–8)

Act 1: Seven Oracles (1:9–3:22)

Act 2: Seven Seals (6:1–17)

Act 3: Seven Trumpets (8:1–9:21)

Act 4: Seven Signs (12:1–14:20)

Act 5: Seven Bowls (16:1–21)

Act 6: Seven Visions (19:1–20:15)

Act 7: Seven Prophecies (21:2–22:17)

Epilogue (22:18–21)

The following outline provides an overview of Revelation in ten stages:

I. Introduction (1:1–20)

II. Messages to the Seven Churches (2:1–3:22)

III. Vision of the Heavenly Throne Room (4:1–5:14)

IV. Opening of the Seven Seals (6:1–8:1)

V. Sounding of the Seven Trumpets (8:2–11:19)

VI. The People of God versus the Powers of Evil (12:1–14:20)

VII. Pouring Out of the Seven Bowls (15:1–16:21)

VIII. Judgment and Fall of Babylon (17:1–19:5)

IX. God’s Ultimate Victory (19:6–22:5)

X. Conclusion (22:6–21)

I. Introduction (1:1–20). Chapter 1 includes both a prologue (1:1–8) and John’s commission to write what he sees (1:9–20). John’s vision focuses on the risen, glorified Christ and his continued presence among the seven churches.

II. Messages to the seven churches (2:1–3:22). Chapters 2–3 contain messages to seven churches of Asia Minor: Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea. The seven messages follow a similar literary pattern: a description of Jesus, a commendation, an accusation, an exhortation coupled with either warning or encouragement, an admonition to listen, and a promise to those who overcome. These messages reflect the twin dangers faced by the church: persecution and compromise.

III. Vision of the heavenly throne room (4:1–5:14). In chapters 4–5 the scene shifts to the heavenly throne room, where God reigns in majestic power. All of heaven worships the Creator and the Lion-Lamb (Jesus), who alone is qualified to open the scroll because of his sacrificial death.

IV. Opening of the seven seals (6:1–8:1). The unveiling of God’s ultimate victory formally begins here. This section begins the first of a series of three judgment visions (seals, trumpets, and bowls), with seven elements each. When the sixth seal is opened, the question is asked, “Who can withstand it?” Chapter 7 provides the answer with its two visions of God’s people; only those belonging to God can withstand the outpouring of the Lamb’s wrath.

V. Sounding of the seven trumpets (8:2–11:19). The trumpet judgments, patterned after the plagues of Egypt, reveal God’s judgment upon a wicked world. Again, before the seventh element in the series, there is an interval with two visions (10:1–11; 11:1–14) that instruct and encourage God’s people.

VI. The people of God versus the powers of evil (12:1–14:20). Chapter 12 offers the main reason why God’s people face hostility in this world. They are caught up in the larger conflict between God and Satan (the dragon). Although Satan was defeated by the death and resurrection of Christ, he continues to oppose the people of God. Chapter 13 introduces Satan’s two agents: the beast from the sea and the beast from the earth. The dragon and the two beasts constitute an unholy trinity bent on seducing and destroying God’s people. As another interval, chapter 14 offers a glimpse of the final future that God has in store for his people. One day the Lamb and his followers will stand on Mount Zion and sing a new song of redemption.

VII. Pouring out of the seven bowls (15:1–16:21). The seven golden bowls follow the trumpets and seals as the final series of seven judgments. As the bowls of God’s wrath are poured out on an unrepentant world, the plagues are devastating indicators of God’s anger toward sin and evil. The only response from the “earth dwellers” (MSG; NIV: “inhabitants of the earth” [17:2, 8]; this is a common term in Revelation for unbelievers) is to curse God rather than repent (16:9, 11, 21).

VIII. Judgment and fall of Babylon (17:1–19:5). This section depicts the death of Babylon, a pagan power said to be “drunk with the blood of God’s holy people, the blood of those who bore testimony to Jesus” (17:6). The funeral laments for the deceased Babylon of chapter 18 give way to a celebration as God’s people rejoice over Babylon’s downfall (19:1–5).

IX. God’s ultimate victory (19:6–22:5). This climactic section describes God’s ultimate victory over evil and the final reward for the people of God. This scene includes the return of Christ for his bride (19:6–16), Christ’s defeat of the two beasts and their allies (19:17–21), the binding of Satan and the millennial reign (20:1–6), the final defeat of Satan (20:7–10), and the final judgment and the death of death itself (20:11–15). Chapter 21 features a description of the new heaven and new earth, where God’s long-standing promise to live among his people is fully realized.

X. Conclusion (22:6–21). Revelation closes with final blessings for those who heed the message of the book and warnings for those who do not. Jesus’ promise to return soon is met with John’s prayer, “Come, Lord Jesus” (22:20).

Characters and Themes

The foregoing outlines are helpful for understanding Revelation, but perhaps an even better way to grasp the message of the book is to look closely at its main characters and story line. The following seven themes capture the overall theological message of this dynamic prophetic-apocalyptic letter.

1. God. Revelation presents God as a central character in the story. He is sovereign and firmly in control of history, as his description from 1:4–8 suggests: “the Alpha and the Omega” (the beginning and the end), “the one who is, and who was, and who is to come” (God of the past, the present, and the future), and “the Lord God, . . . the Almighty” (ruler over the universe). The throne room vision of chapters 4–5 also clearly asserts God’s sovereign rule. The throne of God itself stands as a central symbol in the book, representing God’s sovereignty over all things. As a main character, God rightly receives worship. He is worshiped because he is the creator (e.g., 4:11; 14:7) and the righteous judge who condemns evil and vindicates his people (15:3–4; 16:5–7; 19:1–2). Revelation also describes God as one who desires to be fully and intimately present with his people. God cares for and protects his people (e.g., 7:2–3; 14:1; 21:4). As the book closes, God announces the fulfillment of his long-standing promise to live among his people (21:6–7; cf. Exod. 29:45–46; Lev. 26:11–12). God’s children have unhindered access to their loving Father as they serve him, see his face, and bear his name—all in his presence (22:1–5).

2. God’s enemies. Although God reigns supreme, he has enemies who oppose him and his people. As God’s chief enemy, Satan (also known as the dragon, the devil, the serpent, the accuser) works through worldly systems with the intent of thwarting God’s plan. Chapter 12 summarizes this cosmic conflict. In that scene, God defeats the dragon, who then turns his anger against the woman and the rest of her offspring. The dragon’s evil partners include the beast from the sea (traditionally called the “antichrist”) and the beast from the earth (the “false prophet”). The first beast often has been identified with Rome, the dominant pagan power in the first century, although the reference likely extends beyond Rome to any political-economic power that demands absolute allegiance (see 13:1–8; 19:19–20; 20:10). The second beast uses miraculous signs to deceive people into worshiping the first beast. This opponent represents religious power organized in support of the first beast (13:11–18; 19:20; 20:10). The dragon, the beast from the sea, and the false prophet constitute the unholy trinity. God’s enemies also include people (usually called the “inhabitants of the earth”) who follow the beast (13:8, 12), indulge in the ways of this world (17:2), and persecute believers (6:10; 11:10).

3. The Lamb of God. Jesus, the Lamb of God, plays a central role in God’s redemptive plan. In Revelation the Lamb is clearly identified as a divine figure who shares in the authority, glory, and worship reserved for God (5:6, 9–14; 7:10, 17; 12:10; 21:22–23; 22:1, 3). Expressions that refer to God are also used of Jesus, thereby affirming Jesus’ deity (e.g., “Alpha and Omega,” “Lord” [see also 1:4–5]). Revelation highlights the Lamb’s sacrificial death as the key to his victory over evil, paradoxical though it may be (1:5, 18; 5:9). As the slaughtered yet risen Lamb (1:17–18), Jesus is able to identify with his suffering people (1:9; 12:17; 20:4). The Lamb promises to return as the warrior-judge to defeat God’s enemies and rescue God’s people (1:7; 3:11; 16:15; 19:11–21). The famous battle with the forces of evil is recorded in 19:20: “But the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet.” The two beasts are then condemned to the lake of fire, and their followers become the banquet meal for the birds of prey.

4. God’s people. The people of God figure prominently in the book of Revelation. John uses a variety of terms and images to portray God’s people (e.g., church, saints, great multitude, bride of the Lamb, new Jerusalem). These people have been redeemed by the Lamb, and they continue to rely upon his sacrificial death in spite of opposition (1:5; 5:9; 14:3–4). They are a genuinely multicultural people, as indicated by the seven uses of a fourfold formula: every “tribe, language, people, and nation” (5:9; 7:9; 11:9; 13:7; 14:6; cf. 17:15). They are also a persecuted people (1:9; 2:9–10; 7:14; 11:9–10; 12:10; 13:16–17) and at times even a martyred people (6:9–11; 16:6; 17:6; 18:24; 19:2; 20:4). Throughout Revelation, God’s people are characterized as those who obey the commandments of God (1:2, 9; 6:9; 12:17; 14:12; 20:4; 22:9) and who hold fast to the testimony of Jesus (1:2, 9; 6:9; 12:17; 19:10; 20:4). They are a tempted people who are warned throughout the book to endure in faith (13:10; 14:12; 18:4). Like their Savior, they conquer evil by holding fast to their confession even to the point of death (12:11).

5. God’s judgment. God’s judgment of evil plays a crucial role in the book. The central section of Revelation contains three series of seven judgments: the seals (6:1–8:1), the trumpets (8:2–11:19), and the bowls (15:1–16:21). God sends these plagues on his enemies to demonstrate his power and to vindicate his people. These images of judgment also encourage repentance and remind people that God will win the battle against evil. Using two images of judgment—the grain harvest (14:14–16) and the winepress (14:17–20)—chapter 14 presents a clear choice: fear and glorify God (14:7) or face God’s inescapable and eternal judgment (14:11, 19). God’s final judgment on “Babylon the great, the mother of prostitutes” is reported in 17:1–19:6. Babylon represents the worldly system that has blasphemed God and persecuted his people. God’s final judgment of the satanic trinity, their followers, and death itself is described in 19:11–21; 20:7–15. Evil has been destroyed, preparing the way for the restoration of creation.

6. The paradise of God. The story culminates in God’s ultimate restoration of his people and his creation—the paradise of God. What God began to do in Gen. 1–2 he now completes in Rev. 21–22. The river of life replaces the sea. The tree of life supplies food for all. God’s throne as a symbol of God’s sovereign rule over all reality serves as the source of life. God has kept his promise to conquer his enemies, vindicate his people, and restore his creation. The Abrahamic covenant of Gen. 12, that God would bless “all peoples on earth” (v. 3), is fulfilled as the tree of life provides healing for the nations (Rev. 22:2). The new heaven and new earth is identified primarily as the place where God lives among his people (22:4). In the paradise of God there will be no more Satan or sin or death or evil of any kind. God’s people will bask in his glory and respond in worship.

7. The present struggle. A final theme of Revelation is the believer’s struggle to live out God’s story in the present. The Lamb’s followers rely upon the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus for their victory, but they continue to live in enemy territory. They long for the new heaven and new earth, but they must wage war in the present against the forces of evil. Jesus challenges the seven churches to “overcome” or “conquer,” a requirement for inheriting his promises of eternal life, provision, justice, victory, and the presence of God (21:7). A voice from heaven summarizes what it means to overcome: “They [Christians] triumphed over him [Satan] by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony; they did not love their lives so much as to shrink from death” (12:11).

They triumph in the same way that Jesus triumphed: victory through faithfulness, even if it includes suffering. This calls for rejecting false teaching, resisting idolatry, living righteously, and refusing to compromise. Triumphing includes authentic faith that results in obedience to Jesus. Above all, to triumph or overcome means to follow the Lamb.

These seven themes of Revelation reveal how the book offers hope to those who are suffering for the cause of Christ and warning to those who are compromising with the world. Revelation presents the final chapter in God’s grand plan to defeat evil, reverse the curse of sin, transform creation, and live forever among his people. For first-century readers or twenty-first-century readers, Revelation offers a dramatic and empowering vision of what it means to follow Jesus.

Boisterous merrymaking. Although God often commands his people to rejoice, be glad, and celebrate (e.g., Deut. 16:14; Zeph. 3:14), revelry differs in its excess, attitude, and associations. It is connected with idolatry (Exod. 32:6; 1 Cor. 10:7), pride (Zeph. 3:11), self-indulgence (2 Pet. 2:13), and a carpe diem attitude (Isa. 22:13), and is notably lacking after God’s judgment (Isa. 22:2; 23:7, 12; 24:8; 32:12; Zeph. 2:15). The KJV uses the term “revellings” as a work of the flesh (Gal. 5:21) and as an example of Gentile behavior (1 Pet. 4:3), where modern translations generally have “orgies” (NIV, ESV) or “carousing” (NASB).

The term “avenger” occurs sixteen times in the NIV, usually in the phrase “avenger of blood” (  go’el haddam). The Hebrew word go’el may be translated “redeemer,” “avenger,” or “near relative” and referred to a kinsman who acted on behalf of a close relative. The term was used of one who avenged (repaid) the death of a murdered relative (Num. 35:12), received restitution for crimes against a deceased relative (Num. 5:7–8), bought back family property that had been sold (Lev. 25:25), purchased a relative who had been sold into slavery (Lev. 25:48–49), or married a relative’s widow in order to raise up heirs for her deceased husband (levirate marriage) (Deut. 25:5–10). The “avenger of blood” refers specifically to the first of these functions, a murder victim’s near relative who would exact justice by executing the murderer. This was in line with the OT principle of “eye for an eye” and “tooth for a tooth” (Exod. 21:24; Lev. 24:20; Deut. 19:21). Punishment was to be in proportion to the degree and severity of a crime. In the NT, this role of justice is assigned to government authorities (Rom. 13:4).

This procedure for justice for the avenger of blood is found in Num. 35:9–27; Deut. 19:11–13; Josh. 20. If a person was found guilty of intentional murder on the testimony of two or three witnesses (Deut. 17:6; 19:15), the avenger of blood served as executioner.

In cases of accidental manslaughter, the accused could flee to one of six cities of refuge, where the city assembly would judge the case and provide protection from the avenger of blood (Num. 35:6–34; Deut. 4:41–43; 19:1–14; Josh. 20:1–9). Numbers 35:12 designates that “they will be places of refuge from the avenger, so that anyone accused of murder may not die before they stand trial before the assembly” (cf. Josh. 20:9). Deuteronomy 19:4–7 explains the necessity of this protection: the avenger may be filled with rage and take revenge without concern for whether the death was accidental or intentional. If the accused left the city of refuge, the avenger of blood could take his life (Num. 35:27). This held true until the death of the high priest, at which time the accused could leave the city without fear of reprisal. The primary purpose of the laws related to the avenger of blood was to provide consistent justice and so reduce blood feuds and continued cycles of retaliation and revenge.

The term “avenger” occurs sixteen times in the NIV, usually in the phrase “avenger of blood” (  go’el haddam). The Hebrew word go’el may be translated “redeemer,” “avenger,” or “near relative” and referred to a kinsman who acted on behalf of a close relative. The term was used of one who avenged (repaid) the death of a murdered relative (Num. 35:12), received restitution for crimes against a deceased relative (Num. 5:7–8), bought back family property that had been sold (Lev. 25:25), purchased a relative who had been sold into slavery (Lev. 25:48–49), or married a relative’s widow in order to raise up heirs for her deceased husband (levirate marriage) (Deut. 25:5–10). The “avenger of blood” refers specifically to the first of these functions, a murder victim’s near relative who would exact justice by executing the murderer. This was in line with the OT principle of “eye for an eye” and “tooth for a tooth” (Exod. 21:24; Lev. 24:20; Deut. 19:21). Punishment was to be in proportion to the degree and severity of a crime. In the NT, this role of justice is assigned to government authorities (Rom. 13:4).

This procedure for justice for the avenger of blood is found in Num. 35:9–27; Deut. 19:11–13; Josh. 20. If a person was found guilty of intentional murder on the testimony of two or three witnesses (Deut. 17:6; 19:15), the avenger of blood served as executioner.

In cases of accidental manslaughter, the accused could flee to one of six cities of refuge, where the city assembly would judge the case and provide protection from the avenger of blood (Num. 35:6–34; Deut. 4:41–43; 19:1–14; Josh. 20:1–9). Numbers 35:12 designates that “they will be places of refuge from the avenger, so that anyone accused of murder may not die before they stand trial before the assembly” (cf. Josh. 20:9). Deuteronomy 19:4–7 explains the necessity of this protection: the avenger may be filled with rage and take revenge without concern for whether the death was accidental or intentional. If the accused left the city of refuge, the avenger of blood could take his life (Num. 35:27). This held true until the death of the high priest, at which time the accused could leave the city without fear of reprisal. The primary purpose of the laws related to the avenger of blood was to provide consistent justice and so reduce blood feuds and continued cycles of retaliation and revenge.

Closely related to honor and respect and often translating the Hebrew and Greek words for “fear,” reverence is directed primarily toward the sacred or divine, such as God’s sanctuary (Lev. 19:30; 26:2), the temple (Ps. 5:7), God’s name (Rev. 11:18), God himself (Dan. 6:26; Mal. 2:5), and his messengers, the angel of the Lord (Josh. 5:14), and Peter (Acts 10:25). Reverence for God motivates behavior that honors him, such as just governance (Neh. 5:15), mutual submission (Eph. 5:21), purity (2 Cor. 7:1), and obedience (Col. 3:22). It is an attitude of acceptable worship (Heb. 12:28), connected with humility (Jer. 44:10), which may win over unbelievers (1 Pet. 3:2).

A city conquered by the Assyrians and used in a letter from their king to warn Hezekiah of a similar fate (2 Kings 19:12; Isa. 37:12; cf. 2 Kings 18:33–34). Assyrian texts mention this city and its governors in 839–673 BC. It was likely the Assyrian provincial capital on the road from Harran to Palmyra, south of the Euphrates at modern Rezzafeh.

The third of the three sons of Ulla from the tribe of Asher (1 Chron. 7:39).

(1) The king of Aram who in 733 BC, accompanied by King Pekah of Israel, invaded Judah and threatened Jerusalem during the reign of King Ahaz of Judah. Ignoring the advice of the prophet Isaiah, Ahaz enlisted the support of King Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria. See 2 Kings 15:37–16:9; Isa. 7:1–9. (2) One of the ancestors of the temple servants who returned to Judah from the Babylonian captivity under the leadership of Zerubbabel in 539 BC or soon after (Ezra 2:48; Neh. 7:50).

The name, or possibly the title, of an official of King Hadadezer of Zobah. He left Zobah to lead a band of rebels to take control of Damascus and become the ruler of Aram and an adversary of Solomon (1 Kings 11:23–25).

A port city of Greek influence on the Strait of Messina at the southern tip of Italy, across from Sicily (modern Reggio di Calabria). Paul’s ship docked there overnight en route to Rome (Acts 28:13). It was the last stop before docking at Puteoli and embarking by land to Rome.

An otherwise unknown postexilic ancestor of Jesus mentioned only in Luke 3:27 as the son of Zerubbabel and the father of Joanan.

Rhetoric is the process by which people influence others for good through the use of language, images, symbols, and metaphors. Aristotle (384–322 BC) defined rhetoric as the discovery of the available means of persuasion in any given situation. Quintilian (c. AD 35–95) defined rhetoric as a good person speaking well. Rhetoric is the study of how others are influenced for good. The rhetorician directs others toward noble beliefs and actions that enable them to best meet their goals and enhance the life of the community in which they live.

Biblical scholars now acknowledge that rhetoric is inherent in Scripture. Rhetoric deals with discovering and addressing concerns, issues, and problems in a particular setting. Each book of the Bible is written to a specific context and audience. Therefore, the authors, intentionally or not, systematically or not, use rhetoric to communicate their message.

Yet because of Paul’s statement to the Corinthians, some conclude that Paul and Scripture oppose rhetoric. Paul writes, “I came to you in weakness. . . . My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power” (1 Cor. 2:3–5).

On the one hand, Paul is opposed to the rhetoric of his opponents, who engage in sophistry and use rhetoric solely to pursue status and recognition. On the other hand, Paul is well versed in the principles of Greco-Roman rhetoric and uses rhetoric, but in a different way and with different motives. His rhetoric is tempered by the gospel message rather than by audience expectations or concern for status. The message of God’s love determines the parameters of Paul’s rhetoric.

Since the late 1960s, scholars have used the discipline of rhetoric to study biblical texts. Rhetorical criticism enables scholars to explore in greater depth the unique features of a text. Form criticism identified the “pure” form of a text, but it could not see its particularity. It abstracted texts, detaching them from their historical context and audience. Initially used as a means of attaching a text more closely to its historical and sociological setting, rhetorical criticism now focuses primarily on the synchronic and intrinsic dimensions of a text. Though the interpretive goal of rhetorical criticism is not to seek a singular meaning for a text, neither does it hold that a text can mean whatever the interpreter or reader wants it to mean. The interpretive constraints of rhetorical criticism are limited by a text’s form and content in its context. Thus, rhetorical criticism is a study of texts that seeks to identify the ways in which such texts influence readers in a particular setting.

Because rhetoric is a means of discovering ways to influence others for the good, it can also serve as a hermeneutical tool for studying biblical texts. Both of these uses fall under an even larger umbrella of purpose. In its fullest sense, rhetoric is a resource employed in the pursuit of knowledge and truth. Rhetoric is most at home when engaged as a heuristic source to aid in discovering truth and understanding, not in distorting them. Rhetoric does not possess an independent reality of its own but rather exists imbedded in the reality of truth and knowledge. Stanley Fish, an important scholar of rhetoric, compares rhetoric to a physician. It is the physician’s job to diagnose a particular problem in a particular situation and prescribe the best course of action to take for that person. That is the task of rhetoric.

The servant who greeted Peter at the courtyard gate after he had been miraculously delivered from prison, where he awaited trial by Herod (Acts 12:13). Rhoda apparently was involved in the prayer meeting at the house of Mary the mother of John Mark. Instead of opening the gate when Peter knocked, Rhoda became excited and ran back into the prayer meeting. When she announced that Peter was at the door, the group did not believe her, but when she persisted, they went out and found Peter.

A Mediterranean island of over five hundred square miles, with a capital city also named “Rhodes” at the northeast point. The island extends toward Crete from the southwest extremity of Asia Minor on the main sea route between the Aegean and Phoenician ports. In antiquity, the residents of Rhodes took advantage of their location to play an influential economic and political role. In Ezekiel’s lament for Tyre, Rhodes is mentioned as its trading partner (Ezek. 27:15). Rhodes became a leading Greek republic after Alexander and built the Colossus of Rhodes (completed in 292 BC), a statue of Apollos (Helios), the sun god, whose cult was centered there. Due to disloyalty, the Romans advanced Delos to hinder the rise of Rhodes, leaving the island as a resort for learning and leisure by the time Paul stopped there on his last journey (Acts 21:1).

The father of Ithai, one of David’s elite soldiers, a Benjamite who lived in Gibeah (2 Sam. 23:29; 1 Chron. 11:31).

In Num. 15:38 the KJV translates the Hebrew word patil as “ribband,” referring to a blue “cord” (NIV, NRSV) or “thread” (NET) attached to tassels on the corners of Israelite garments.

(1) A Syrian city located on the eastern border of the Orontes River. The modern city of Riblah is in the same location. Riblah was the site for the deposing of two kings of Judah. After reigning only three months upon the death of his father, Josiah, Jehoahaz was taken captive by Pharaoh Necho, bound in chains at Riblah, and deported to Egypt (2 Kings 23:29–34). Twelve years later, Zedekiah was punished by King Nebuchadnezzar for rebellion, and his sons along with the chief priest and other officials were executed in Riblah, which the Babylonian king was using as a staging area (2 Kings 25:6–7, 18–21; Jer. 39:5–6; 52:9–10, 26). (2) An unidentified city on the eastern boundary of Israel, near Ain (Num. 34:11).

Both the OT and the NT view wealth as ultimately a result of God’s blessing (Prov. 10:22). Abraham shows the right attitude by refusing to accept plunder from the king of Sodom, recognizing God as the sole source of his riches (Gen. 14:23). Solomon’s wealth was seen as God’s favor (1 Kings 3:13). Wealth and riches are said to be in the house of persons “who fear the Lord” (Ps. 112:1–3). However, material success alone is not necessarily an indication of God’s approval, nor is poverty a sign of God’s disfavor. Fundamentally, neither poverty nor wealth can be superficially tied to divine displeasure or favor.

Balanced view. The Bible articulates a balanced view of wealth. It warns against having an arrogant attitude by failing to acknowledge that the source of wealth is God (Deut. 8:17–18). There is danger in trusting in riches (Pss. 52:7; 62:10). The rich are charged not to be haughty, and to set their hopes not on uncertain riches but rather on God (1 Tim. 6:17–18). The love of money is described as the root of all kinds of evil (1 Tim. 6:9–10), and it is therefore extremely difficult for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God (Matt. 19:24). The foolishness of materialism, making riches the center of one’s life, is shown in the parable of the wealthy farmer (Luke 12:15–21). Instead of monetary greed, the spirit of contentment is commended, because even if lacking on the material level, one still has the Lord (Luke 12:15; Phil. 4:11; Heb. 13:5). Material possessions should be gained rightly; effort and diligence are required (Gen. 3:19; Prov. 10:4). Obtaining wealth through dishonesty and ill-gotten gains is denounced and condemned (Prov. 11:26; 13:11; Jer. 17:11; Mic. 6:12).

God-centered perspective. Wealth and material possessions are to be viewed from a God-centered perspective. God is the one who provides everything; thus we should trust him for our daily needs (Matt. 6:25–34; Luke 11:3). Job’s confession in a time of loss, “The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away; may the name of the Lord be praised,” shows an admirable attitude to emulate (Job 1:21). God is the owner of all things, and we are simply stewards and administrators of God’s wealth. We need to remember that one day we will be accountable for the use of our wealth (1 Cor. 10:31). Jesus teaches us to seek the kingdom of God first rather than his material blessings (Luke 12:31–33). Anything that draws us away from serving God should be avoided. We cannot serve both God and mammon (Matt. 6:24). Our treasures are to be in heaven, meaning that our central focus should be on matters pertaining to the kingdom: “Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Luke 12:32–34).

Responsibility and generosity. With the possession of wealth comes the duty to give generously to those in need (Prov. 11:24; 28:27). Prosperity is given as a means to do good; thus we ought to be rich in good deeds (1 Tim. 6:18). Although it is a duty of the covenant community to take care of the needy in the OT, it still emphasizes the voluntary heart (Deut. 15:5–11). In 2 Cor. 9:7, Paul presents the principle of giving in the NT: “Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” It should be not an exaction but a willing gift (9:5).

The Christian should emulate Jesus: “Though he was rich, yet for [our] sake he became poor, so that [we] through his poverty might become rich” (2 Cor. 8:9). Therefore, material offerings to Christ should not be a burden (1 Cor. 9:11). Sacrificial giving is an expression of love to the Lord (2 Cor. 9:12). It also generates thanksgiving to God from those who receive it (2 Cor. 9:11). Worldly wealth should also be used for evangelistic purposes (Luke 16:8). If we are faithful in the use of money, we can be trusted with the kingdom’s spiritual riches (Luke 16:12–13). Although riches do not have eternal value in themselves, their proper use has eternal consequences (Luke 12:33; 1 Tim. 6:19). One of the qualifications of a church overseer is to be free from the love of money, and a deacon must not pursue dishonest gain (1 Tim. 3:3, 8). A good name is to be chosen over great riches (Prov. 22:1). James condemns as sinful the attitude of favoring the wealthy over the poor. Nonpreferential love is the answer to prejudicial favoritism (James 2:1–9).

A word puzzle, often involving a pun, in which the true meaning of a word or phrase is hidden and must be discovered. To solve a riddle requires an understanding of the mind-set of the person who crafted it. Although often associated with wisdom sayings, the most famous riddle in the Bible is that presented by Samson, a man known more for his brawn than his brain. Samson’s riddle functions both as an entertaining brainteaser and as the object of a bet with his bridegrooms (see Judg. 14). A riddle can be performed with a harp (Ps. 49:4) and is listed alongside proverbs, parables, and the sayings of the wise (Prov. 1:6). The ability to explain riddles is a talent attributed to Daniel along with interpreting dreams and solving difficult problems (Dan. 5:12). God may communicate with riddles (Dan. 5), or he may purposely avoid them (Num. 12:8).

To be in one’s right mind is to be sane. After Jesus exorcizes the demons called “Legion,” the formerly possessed man sits at Jesus’ feet, completely sane, no longer out of control (Mark 5:15; Luke 8:35). Paul uses the term (Gk. sōphroneō) to contrast sanity with insanity (2 Cor. 5:13).

Righteousness is an important theme in both Testaments of the Bible. The concept includes faithfulness, justice, uprightness, correctness, loyalty, blamelessness, purity, salvation, and innocence. Because the theme is related to justification, it has important implications for the doctrine of salvation (see also Justification).

Old Testament

Divine righteousness. Being careful to avoid imposing Western philosophical categories onto OT texts, we may say that the core idea of righteousness is conformity to God’s person and will in moral uprightness, justness, justice, integrity, and faithfulness. Behind the many and varied uses of righteousness language in the OT stands the presupposition that God himself is righteous in the ultimate sense (e.g., Ezra 9:15; Isa. 45:21; Zeph. 3:5). Righteousness is the expression of his holiness in relationship to others (Isa. 5:16), and all other nuances of righteousness in the biblical texts are derived from this. Either he reveals what is right or demonstrates rightness in his activity. God’s decrees and laws are righteous (Deut. 4:8; Ps. 119); his will is righteous (Deut. 33:21); his acts are righteous (Judg. 5:11; 1 Sam. 12:7; Ps. 71:24); his judgments are righteous (Ps. 7:11); and he always judges with righteousness (Ps. 96:13). In OT texts, divine righteousness is often linked to God’s saving activity, particularly in Psalms (e.g., Ps. 71) and in Isa. 40–66. Divine righteousness is much broader than deliberative justice (i.e., punishing the wicked and rewarding the righteous), though it does include it.

Human righteousness. Related to humans, righteousness is often found as the opposite of wickedness. Righteousness often occurs in evaluative contexts, where it relates to proper conduct with respect to God, the order of the world as he created it, the covenant, or law (e.g., Deut. 6:25). God reigns in righteousness and justice (e.g., Ps. 97:2), and humans should align their conduct with this righteous reign. Righteousness can be expressed as personal integrity with phrases such as “my righteousness” (2 Sam. 22:21, 25; Ps. 7:8) and “their righteousness” (1 Sam. 26:23). Unrighteousness is found in poetic parallel to injustice (e.g., Jer. 22:13); the unjust are parallel with the wicked (Ps. 82:2).

It seems likely that the OT understanding of righteousness was more concrete and less absolute than the typical thinking of most contemporary Western Christians. A more absolute way of understanding righteousness might lead one to think that a truly righteous person is sinless. While we do have references to absolute righteousness in the OT (e.g., Ps. 143:2; cf. Job 4:17; 25:4; Isa. 64:6–7), there are many more references to a righteousness grounded in particular or generalized situations (e.g., Pss. 32:11; 64:10). Another way of unpacking this conceptual difference is the helpful distinction between “ordinary” and “absolute” righteousness. Ordinary righteousness reflects the kind of righteousness that we intend when making comments such as “my wife is a righteous woman.” This means, taken in broad perspective, that her life is characterized predominantly by righteousness. This statement is not making a claim of sinlessness, absolute righteousness. The OT offers examples of comparative righteousness between people (e.g., Gen. 38:26; 1 Sam. 24:17; Jer. 3:11). Absolute righteousness is different from this. It is the extraordinary righteousness that we see in the person and work of God; he is righteous and without sin, totally holy in his dealings.

Noncanonical Jewish documents from the intertestamental period, while varying greatly in individual perspective, generally affirm OT views of human and divine righteousness. In these documents righteousness often is associated with mercy, goodness, justness, and concern for the poor and is contrasted with wickedness.

In Greco-Roman society, righteousness was one of the cardinal virtues and thus had an important influence in society. Greco-Roman righteousness did have some measure of abstractness as a kind of external norm, but this abstractness should not obscure the fact that righteousness often had a relational component in Greco-Roman literature and life. Righteous and unrighteous behaviors often were embedded in interpersonal relationships. Unrighteous deeds not only violated “transcendent” standards of righteousness, but also impacted humans.

New Testament

Ordinary human righteousness. Righteousness language is more rare in the Gospels than one might expect in light of OT and Jewish intertestamental usage. These references fit with the Jewish setting: righteousness is required of God’s people, and unrighteousness is to be avoided. Righteousness is proper conduct with respect to God or Torah (Matt. 21:32) in contrast to wickedness (Matt. 13:49). Righteousness could be conceived as one’s own (e.g., Luke 18:9) and has its reward (Matt. 10:41). While the specific terms related to righteousness are infrequent in the Gospels, the broader concept of conformity to God’s will is widely apparent in calls for repentance, personal moral uprightness, mercy, and concern for the marginalized. The NT Epistles continue these general strands of the concept. Righteousness is related to personal conduct (1 Thess. 2:10; 1 Tim. 6:11; 2 Tim. 2:22; 1 Pet. 2:24) and is contrasted with wickedness (2 Cor. 6:14); it is a matter of doing, not knowing (Rom. 2:13). An example of righteousness in doing is the kindness shown by the prostitute Rahab, who hid the Israelite spies (James 2:25).

The NT does signal some new dimensions related to righteousness. In the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5–7), Jesus extends the requirements of righteousness to conformity to his own teaching and directives, a shocking display of authority. In his mission to call sinners rather than the “righteous” (e.g., Mark 2:17), Jesus implicitly questions the righteousness of the “righteous.” In similar manner, personal righteousness in terms of a righteousness of one’s own is negative in the NT (Rom. 10:3; Phil. 3:6; cf. Luke 18:9).

Divine righteousness. The NT continues the OT theme of righteousness as it relates to God himself. God is righteous (John 17:25; Rom. 3:5; 9:14; Heb. 6:10; cf. Matt. 6:33). His judgments are righteous (Rom. 2:5), and his commands and laws are righteous (Rom. 7:12; 8:4). God is a righteous judge (2 Tim. 4:8). His saving activity is righteous; he does not compromise his own justice in justifying the ungodly (Rom. 3:24–26). The righteousness of God is contrasted with human unrighteousness and wickedness (Rom. 3:5; James 1:20). Since God reigns over creation in righteousness, human conduct should conform to that standard (e.g., Rom. 14:17). Jesus is also noted as righteous (Acts 3:14; 7:52; 22:14; 1 Pet. 3:18; 1 John 2:1, 29). He fulfilled righteousness in the absolute sense of demonstrating complete conformity to the nature and will of God (e.g., 1 Pet. 3:18). He also fulfilled God’s righteousness in the sense of his saving activity toward humans (e.g., 2 Pet. 1:1).

“The righteousness of God” and extra-ordinary human righteousness. There is a significant OT connection between God’s righteousness and his faithfulness in saving activity (e.g., Psalms; Isa. 40–66). Although there are glimpses of righteousness related to God’s saving activity outside of Paul’s Letter to the Romans (e.g., Matt. 5:10; 6:33), a technical phrase, “the righteousness of God,” is used in three important texts in Romans (1:17; 3:21–22 [2×]; 10:3 [2×]). In the gospel, “the righteousness of God” is revealed, where “righteousness of God” could mean his divine righteousness in some sense, righteousness from God (NIV), God’s saving activity as related to his righteousness in fulfilling his covenant faithfulness (e.g., Psalms), or some combination of these.

The righteousness of God is further discussed in Rom. 3:21: “the righteousness of God” has now been revealed apart from the Mosaic law, though the OT testifies about it (cf. Rom. 4 and Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11; Heb. 10:38). This righteousness of God is clarified in that it is by trust in Jesus Christ for all, both Jews and Gentiles. The “righteousness of God” may be distinguished from righteousness as a character quality of God (Rom. 3:25–26). In fact, it must be, for God’s righteousness as a character quality was revealed in the OT, whereas “the righteousness of God” is “apart from the [Mosaic] law” (3:21).

In Rom. 10:3 Paul comments that the Israelites are ignorant of “the righteousness of God”; they are seeking to establish their own righteousness because they are not submitting to “the righteousness of God.” The Israelites certainly knew of God’s righteousness in terms of his character, judgments, and expectations of his people. The lack of submission to “the righteousness of God” occurs in the context of the Jewish rejection of Jesus (e.g., 9:32–33; 10:9–13). And Jesus is the key to understanding “the righteousness of God” in the other texts also.

In Rom. 1:17 the righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel, which is the power of God for salvation to all who trust in Jesus (1:3–5, 16). The righteousness of God in 3:21–22 is related to trust in Jesus (3:22, 25–26), who as a sacrifice of atonement (3:25) enables the justification and redemption of sinners (3:24, 26). In Jesus we become the righteousness of God (2 Cor. 5:21). The righteousness of God, then, is God’s saving activity revealed and manifested in the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ, whereby sinners are justified as both innocent and righteous in Christ.

(1) Meaning “pomegranate,” it is a common place name, both on its own and in combination. There were settlements by that name in the tribes of Judah, Simeon, Zebulun, Dan, and Manasseh (Josh. 15:32; 19:7–45). One of the resting places during Israel’s wilderness wandering, Rimmon Perez, bore this name (Num. 33:19–20). During the Israelite civil war at Gibeah, a Benjamite remnant of six hundred men took refuge at the “rock of Rimmon” (Judg. 20:45). (See also Remmonmethoar.) (2) The father of Ish-Bosheth’s murderers, a Gibeonite from Beeroth (2 Sam. 4:2–6). (3) An Aramean (and Babylonian) deity, the god of rain (2 Kings 5:18).

(1) Meaning “pomegranate,” it is a common place name, both on its own and in combination. There were settlements by that name in the tribes of Judah, Simeon, Zebulun, Dan, and Manasseh (Josh. 15:32; 19:7–45). One of the resting places during Israel’s wilderness wandering, Rimmon Perez, bore this name (Num. 33:19–20). During the Israelite civil war at Gibeah, a Benjamite remnant of six hundred men took refuge at the “rock of Rimmon” (Judg. 20:45). (See also Remmonmethoar.) (2) The father of Ish-Bosheth’s murderers, a Gibeonite from Beeroth (2 Sam. 4:2–6). (3) An Aramean (and Babylonian) deity, the god of rain (2 Kings 5:18).

(1) Meaning “pomegranate,” it is a common place name, both on its own and in combination. There were settlements by that name in the tribes of Judah, Simeon, Zebulun, Dan, and Manasseh (Josh. 15:32; 19:7–45). One of the resting places during Israel’s wilderness wandering, Rimmon Perez, bore this name (Num. 33:19–20). During the Israelite civil war at Gibeah, a Benjamite remnant of six hundred men took refuge at the “rock of Rimmon” (Judg. 20:45). (See also Remmonmethoar.) (2) The father of Ish-Bosheth’s murderers, a Gibeonite from Beeroth (2 Sam. 4:2–6). (3) An Aramean (and Babylonian) deity, the god of rain (2 Kings 5:18).

The KJV name for a Levitical city on the border of the tribe of Zebulun (Josh. 19:13). The NIV and other versions translate the name as “Rimmon” and “methoar” as the verb “to turn.” The same location is named “Rimmono” in 1 Chron. 6:77 and“Dimnah” in Josh. 21:35. It usually is identified with modern Rummaneh, six miles northeast of Nazareth.

A son of Gomer (Gen. 10:3; 1 Chron. 1:6), he was a great-grandson of Noah and the brother of Ashkenaz and Togarmah. At 1 Chron. 1:6 some versions (RSV, NRSV, NASB) give the name as “Diphath,” an alternate reading. The spelling confusion likely arises from the similar appearance of the Hebrew letters resh and dalet.

Meaning “double wickedness,” this appellation is attached to the name of Cushan, king of Mesopotamia (Aram Naharaim). The people of Israel served him eight years before Othniel son of Kenaz, first of the judges, delivered them (Judg. 3:8–9). See also Cushan-Rishathaim.

A stop on the Israelite trek through the wilderness (Num. 33:21–22). The name may mean “dewdrop,” “rain,” or “ruins.” It is possibly an ancient name for the oasis of Sharma, east of the Gulf of Aqaba.

A stop on the Israelite trek through the wilderness (Num. 33:18–19). The name may mean “broom plant.” It is possibly located east of the Gulf of Aqaba, where there is a valley named “er-Ratame,” which could be related.

The words “sacrifice” and “offering” often are used interchangeably, but “offering” refers to a gift more generally, while “sacrifice” indicates a gift consecrated for a divine being. In biblical Hebrew “sacrifice” is more narrowly equated with the peace offering. All other “sacrifices” are referred to as gifts. Sacrifices were offered to honor God, thanking him for his goodness. More important, they enabled persons to be made right with God by atoning for their sins. Whereas sin upset the fellowship God desired to have with people and kindled his wrath, sacrifice restored the relationship.

Old Testament

OT offerings included cereals (whether the grain was whole, ground into flour, or mixed with other elements), liquids (wine, oil, or water), and animals (or parts thereof, such as the blood and fat). Although the Bible acknowledges that other ancient Near Eastern people had their own sacrificial rites, it rejects them as unworthy of the God of Israel. The people of God therefore were instructed how to sacrifice properly while at Sinai. Even so, offerings and sacrifices are recorded as taking place before the law was given.

Prior to the law. Cain and Abel brought the earliest offerings. Contrary to a common interpretation, Cain’s offering was not rejected because it did not include blood; the Hebrew word for the brothers’ gifts, minkhah, usually denotes grain offerings. A better conclusion is that Cain only brought some of his produce (no mention of firstfruits), while Abel brought the best of the best (the fat portions from the firstborn of the flock).

Immediately after the flood, Noah built an altar and presented the first burnt offering mentioned in the Bible (Gen. 8:20). That this (and other sacrifices) was received as a “pleasing aroma” indicates that God approved of and accepted it. It is significant that immediately after the offering, God made a covenant with Noah, his descendants, and every living creature. Sacrifices are closely related to covenant relationships, as can be seen in the story of Abraham enacting a covenant ceremony in Gen. 15 and in Israel receiving many instructions about sacrifice while at Sinai (cf. Gen. 31:43–54).

Sacrificial laws in Leviticus. Sacrificial laws are found throughout the Pentateuch, the most being in Lev. 1–7. As Leviticus makes clear, Israel understood sacrifice to have a number of different purposes. It was a means to bring a gift to God, to express communion with him and others in the community, to consecrate something or someone for God’s use, and to deal with personal uncleanness or sin. These ideas are developed in the descriptions of the different sacrifices that Israel was required to bring to God. In general, the sacrifices were made of clean animals raised by the one making the offering or of grain or wine produced by the person. In some cases, the offering was connected with the person’s economic ability, a poorer person being allowed to present doves or even cereal if a lamb or goat was unaffordable for a sin offering (Lev. 5:6–13). In all cases, only the best—what was “without defect”—was to be offered.

Priest as mediator. Three parties were involved in the sacrifices: the worshiper, the priest, and God. The worshiper—the person who had sinned or become unclean in some way—brought an animal to God, laid a hand upon it, and then killed it. Whether the animal’s death represents the death that the worshiper deserves due to sin or whether the sin is transferred to the animal that bears it instead is unclear. The priest served as a mediator who offered the blood of the sacrifice to God and, in many instances, burned all or part of the offering. In response to the offering, God, who had graciously given the sacrificial system so that those who had sinned could be restored to fellowship with him, forgave the person. Uniquely in the ancient world, Israelite sacrifices were not considered magical acts that could manipulate God to act on behalf of the worshiper. Presenting an improper sacrifice while exhibiting an improper attitude or motive resulted in rejection.

Types of sacrifices. Leviticus introduced five main sacrifices: the ’olah (1:1–17; 6:8–18), the minkhah (2:1–16; 6:14–23), the shelamim (3:1–17; 7:11–36), the khatta’t (4:1–5:13), and the ’asham (5:14–6:7). Most of these focused on uncleanness or sin. The worshiper who brought such an offering was not allowed to eat any of it, as it was wholly given to God. Even when priests were allowed to eat part of a sacrifice, their portion was “waved” before God, indicating that it belonged to him.

1. The ’olah, or burnt offering, is the basic OT sacrifice connected with atonement for sin (Lev. 1:4). When rightly offered, it was accepted as “an aroma pleasing to the Lord.” The worshiper brought a male animal (young bull, sheep, goat, dove, or young pigeon) without blemish, laid a hand upon it, and then killed it. After the priest sprinkled some of the blood on the altar, the rest was burned up.

2. The minkhah is simply a gift or offering. The Hebrew word is often used for a present given to another person or tribute to a ruler. When used of sacrifice, it is usually rendered as “grain offering” or “meal offering.” A minkhah can, on occasion, include flesh or fat (Gen. 4:4; Judg. 6:18–21). Considered “an aroma pleasing to the Lord,” it consisted of unground grain or fine flour mixed with oil and incense and was presented either cooked or uncooked. Part of the offering was burned as a “memorial portion,” the rest being given to the priests (Lev. 2:1–3). It usually was accompanied by a drink offering—wine poured out on the altar. Grain offerings frequently complemented burnt offerings or fellowship offerings. The showbread may have been considered a grain offering.

3. The shelamim (NIV: “fellowship offering”) has traditionally been called the “peace offering,” as the term is related to shalom. This offering most likely indicated that the worshiper was at peace with God and others; all the worshiper’s relationships were whole. Classified into three types, it could be used to express thanksgiving, to signify the fulfillment of a vow, or simply to denote one’s desire to bring an offering to God out of free will. Only those who made a vow were required to offer a shelamim; the other forms were wholly optional. The worshiper brought a male or female animal (ox, sheep, or goat) without blemish, laid a hand on its head, and slaughtered it. The priest sprinkled its blood on the sides of the altar and burned the fat surrounding the major organs. It is described as “an aroma pleasing to the Lord.”

This offering significantly recognized the covenant relationship existing between those who shared in it. God received the fatty portions, the officiating priest received the right thigh, the other priests the breast, and the remainder was shared among members of a family, clan, tribe, or some other group. According to Leviticus, a thanksgiving offering was to be eaten on the day it was offered, and a vow or freewill offering could be eaten within two days. Anything not eaten in the prescribed time period was to be burned.

4. The khatta’t, or sin offering, atoned for the sin of an individual or of the nation and cleansed the sacred items in the tabernacle that had been corrupted by sin. Since a sin offering could purify ceremonial as well as moral uncleanness, people who were unclean due to childbirth, skin diseases, bodily discharges, and so forth also brought them (Lev. 12–15).

The kind of animal sacrificed and the sacrificial ritual varied with the offender and the offense. If a priest or the entire congregation sinned, a bull was sacrificed and its blood was sprinkled before the veil of the tabernacle and on the incense altar in the holy place. The rest was burned, leaving nothing to be eaten. Leaders who sinned sacrificed a male goat. Its blood was sprinkled on the bronze altar, and the remainder was given to the priest. A commoner brought and slaughtered a she-goat or lamb, the priest sprinkled its blood on the horns of the altar, and the fat was burned for God and the rest given to the priests. A poor person could bring two doves or pigeons, and the very poor could bring a grain offering. This differentiation apparently indicated that the sins of some members of the community had more serious consequences than others. Those in closest contact with the tabernacle contaminated it at a deeper level, requiring a more costly sacrifice. The poor were not required to bring more than they could afford.

5. The ’asham, or guilt offering, provided compensation for sins. A ram without blemish was sacrificed, its blood was sprinkled on the altar, and its fatty portions, kidneys, and liver were burned. The rest was given to the priest. In addition, the value of what was misappropriated plus one-fifth of its value was given to the person wronged or to the priests.

Altars. According to Leviticus, only the Aa-ron-ic priests could handle the blood or other parts of a sacrifice brought to the altar at the tabernacle. Even so, throughout Israel’s history other sacrificial altars were built. While some of these were illicitly used for syncretistic practices, others were constructed at God’s instruction (Josh. 8:30–35; Judg. 6:25–26). Some of these were used by priests making rounds so that people from different areas could sacrifice to God (1 Sam. 7:17). Others were used by individuals who were not priests yet desired to call upon the name of the Lord or sacrifice for communal meals. The solitary altars were mainly used for burnt offerings and peace offerings, although grain and drink offerings also were known. Sin and guilt offerings were offered only at the tabernacle or temple.

Times and purposes. The OT regulates a number of different occasions upon which regular sacrifices were to be made. Burnt offerings were presented every morning and evening (Exod. 29:38–41; Num. 28:1–8). Additional offerings were sacrificed on the Sabbath and the new moon (Num. 28:9–15). Special sacrifices were brought to celebrate the major festivals of the year (Num. 28:16–29:39), particularly the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16). Sacrifices might also accompany requests for safety or deliverance or in response to God’s deliverance. Thus, burnt and fellowship offerings could be brought along with prayers that God would put an end to a plague (2 Sam. 24:18–25). King David brought burnt offerings and fellowship offerings when the ark of the covenant was returned after having been captured by the Philistines (2 Sam. 6:1–19).

Sacrifices could also be made to consecrate people or things for a special task. When the tabernacle was consecrated, special offerings were brought for twelve continuous days (Num. 7). Later, fellowship, burnt, and grain offerings were sacrificed when the temple was dedicated (1 Kings 8:62–64). Sin offerings were presented when a priest was ordained (Lev. 8–9). Those who completed a vow dedicating themselves as Naz-i-rites brought sacrifices to God so that they could again become a normal member of the congregation (Num. 6:9–21). Fellowship offerings often accompanied the announcement of or installation of a king (1 Sam. 11:14–15; 1 Kings 1:9, 25).

Although the sacrificial system was intended to bring the Israelites back into fellowship with God, at times their misuse of it separated them from him. When his people showed more interest in sacrificial ritual than in obeying God’s instructions, they were chastened (1 Sam. 15:13–22; Jer. 7:21–28). When the people of Israel were guilty of confusing the worship of Yahweh with Canaanite fertility cults, God sent prophets to warn them (Isa. 1:11–16; Amos 4:4–5). Prophetic statements denouncing sacrificial rites were aimed at the misuse of sacrifices rather than their existence. Jeremiah and Ezekiel were so positive about sacrificial worship that they looked forward to a time when it would be reestablished in its pure form (Jer. 17:26; Ezek. 43:18–27; 46:1–24).

New Testament

The NT indicates that the OT sacrificial system was still in place in the early first century AD. Following directions given in Leviticus, Mary brought a sacrifice to the temple in Jerusalem so that she could be purified after giving birth to Jesus (Luke 2:21–24; cf. Lev. 12:3, 8). Mary and Joseph would have sacrificed and eaten a Passover lamb during their annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem to celebrate the Feast of Passover. It is not recorded whether Jesus always went with them, but he did join them at the Passover celebration when he was twelve years old. It is safe to assume that at this time and after he grew up, Jesus took part in the sacrifices when he visited Jerusalem to celebrate the feasts.

Jesus’ disciples attend several feasts with him. In addition, after his resurrection they frequently went to the temple to pray at the time when sacrifices were made. Encouraged by the Jerusalem church leaders, Paul went to the temple to join in and pay for the purification rites of some men who had taken a vow, perhaps to serve as Nazirites (Acts 21:23–26). He later testified before Felix that he had returned to Jerusalem in order to bring gifts to the poor and present offerings in the temple (24:17). Although Gentile believers were exempt from these practices (15:1–29), early Jewish believers clearly saw no contradiction between believing the gospel of Jesus Christ and engaging in sacrificial rituals. They likely followed Jewish piety until the destruction of the temple in AD 70, when all sacrifices at the temple ceased.

Even so, Christians quickly came to understand Christ’s death as the final sacrifice that completed the OT system. Various NT authors consider the nature of Christ’s death and metaphorically relate it to OT sacrifices, but the writer of Hebrews develops this in the most detail. According to Hebrews, the sacrificial system was merely the shadow that pointed to Jesus. Although the blood of animals could not adequately deal with sins, Jesus’ sacrifice could (Heb. 10:1–10). Jesus is regularly identified as the sacrificial lamb whose blood purifies humanity from sin (John 1:29, 36; Rom. 8:3; 1 Cor. 5:7; Eph. 5:2; 1 Pet. 1:19; 1 John 1:7; Rev. 5:6, 12; 7:14; 12:11; 13:8). His sacrifice is considered a propitiation that turns away God’s wrath (Rom. 3:25; 1 John 2:2).

The end of the OT sacrificial system does not mean that those who come to God through Jesus Christ no longer bring sacrifices. Instead of animal and grain offerings, spiritual sacrifices are to be made (1 Pet. 2:5). Emulating their Savior, Christ’s followers should offer themselves as living sacrifices, devoted to God (Rom. 12:1). This implies that everything done in this life could be considered a sacrifice. Simply believing the gospel makes one an acceptable offering to God (Rom. 15:16). Labor for the sake of the gospel, or perhaps martyrdom, can be viewed as a drink offering (Phil. 2:17). The author of Hebrews identifies three types of sacrifices that believers should offer: praise, good deeds, and sharing with those in need (13:15–16). In line with the last of these points, Paul counts the gift sent by the Philippian church as a fragrant offering that pleases God (Phil. 4:18).

Rivers in Cosmology

Genesis 2:10–14 describes the garden in Eden as the source of an unnamed river that subsequently divided into four “headwaters”: the Pishon, the Gihon, the Tigris, and the Euphrates. This description defies any attempt to locate the purported site of Eden in terms of historical geography. The Tigris and the Euphrates do not diverge from a common source, but instead converge before emptying into the Persian Gulf. Moreover, the Gihon, if it is to be identified with the sacred spring of the same name in Jerusalem (1 Kings 1:45), is several hundred miles away from the Tigris and the Euphrates. The Pishon is otherwise unknown. If, as various commentators since antiquity have suggested, the Gihon and the Pishon are to be identified with other great rivers in the same class of importance as the Tigris and the Euphrates (the Nile, the Ganges, etc.), then this would further confound any attempt to understand Gen. 2:10–14 in terms of historical geography. The image of four rivers emanating from a primordial garden and dividing unnaturalistically from a common source is attested in ancient Near Eastern art, notably in the eighteenth-century BC wall painting illustrating the investiture of Zimri-Lim. In this image, two goddesses stand in a paradisiacal garden, guarded by mythical, sphinxlike creatures (cf. the cherubim in Gen. 3:24), holding vessels from which four rivers flow.

In his vision of the restored land of Israel, Ezekiel sees a great river emanating from the temple in Jerusalem, flowing into the Judean desert, and ultimately turning the Dead Sea into freshwater (Ezek. 47:1–12). Along the banks of the river, Ezekiel sees fishermen and perpetually fruitful trees. Similarly, the vision of the new Jerusalem in Rev. 22:1–2 describes a river of the “water of life” flowing through the city and watering trees that bear fruit in every month. In both cases, the visions draw on the notion that Jerusalem is the cultic and religious center of the world and therefore endow its spring—geologically speaking, an insignificant body of water—with a cosmological significance. It was perhaps this same impulse that led the author of Gen. 2:13, probably himself a Jerusalemite, to mention the Gihon in the same class as the Tigris and the Euphrates.

In Ps. 89:25, in the context of a poem describing the adoption of the Davidic king as a divine son, God is described as promising to “set his hand over the sea, his right hand over the rivers.” Like the sea, a symbol of cosmic chaos in ancient Near Eastern mythology, the rivers represent a force that is overcome by the divine warrior and then placed under the subjection of his human representative, the beloved king. In this connection, it is significant that the exodus—in many ways the preeminent foundational moment of the Israelite religion—involved the splitting of both a sea (Exod. 14:21–22) and a river (Josh. 3:16; Ps. 114:3) and the subsequent passage of the Israelites on dry ground. This people-creating deliverance, in turn, is comparable to the account of creation in Gen. 1, where the Creator God drives back the waters to prepare a dry-ground habitation for humanity (vv. 9–10). In Ugaritic mythology, Yamm, the sea god, also bore the epithet “judge river,” underscoring the cosmological connection between sea and river. As we will see, prophetic oracles of divine judgment, especially when they are directed against the river-based civilization of Egypt, often recapitulate the theme of the God of Israel fighting against the river.

The Nile River

The Nile (Heb. ye’or) is fed by two major tributaries: the White Nile, which begins at Lake Victoria, and the Blue Nile, which begins in Ethiopia. At over four thousand miles, the Nile is the longest river in the world. The ancient civilization of Egypt depended entirely on the flow of the Nile and upon its annual flood (the “gift of the Nile”) for irrigation of crops. Even today, arable land along the Nile is confined in some places to an area no more than a few miles from its banks.

Given the dependence of Egyptian civilization on the Nile, especially its annual flood and the accompanying deposit of silt, it is not surprising that the river figured prominently in Egyptian mythology and religion. In particular, the story of the dying and rising god Osiris was linked with the annual ebb and flow of the great river. The annual inundation is still impressive today; an ancient impression may be gleaned from Amos 9:5, where the prophet appeals to the rising and falling of the Nile as a description of divine, earth-melting judgment.

Two of the plagues sent by God upon the Egyptians took place at the Nile, an appropriate setting for a confrontation between the God of Israel and the Egyptian pharaoh, himself a living representation of the Egyptian pantheon. In Ezek. 29:3 the God of Israel says to Pharaoh, “I am against you, Pharaoh king of Egypt, you great monster lying among your streams. You say, ‘The Nile belongs to me; I made it for myself.’  ” Since the Nile was perhaps the preeminent natural or environmental symbol of Egyptian culture, the God of Israel’s assertion of control of that river would have been understood as an unmistakable claim to sovereignty. At the time of the birth of Moses, the Nile was a place of extinction for the Israelites, for Pharaoh had commanded that every boy born to the Hebrews be thrown into the Nile (Exod. 1:22). Ironically, Moses was saved when his mother put him in the Nile in a pitch-coated basket, where he was found by the royal daughter of Pharaoh, who had come to the Nile to bathe (2:3, 5).

God told Moses to confront Pharaoh at the Nile (Exod. 7:15), and the first plague with which God afflicted the Egyptians consisted of turning the Nile into blood, causing its fish to die and rendering its water unsuitable for drinking. The Egyptians were forced to dig wells along its banks (7:20–21). The second plague involved the multiplication of frogs in the Nile, to the point of great inconvenience (8:3).

Isaiah continues the theme of God punishing the Egyptians by attacking the Nile: “The waters of the river will dry up, and the riverbed will be parched and dry. The canals will stink; the streams of Egypt will dwindle and dry up. The reeds and rushes will wither, also the plants along the Nile” (Isa. 19:5–7). The passage goes on to underscore the importance of the Nile as a source of irrigation water and fishing and the devastation that results from the failure of the Nile to flood as expected. In other texts, where the emphasis is on the better fortunes of Egypt, the power of Egypt is symbolized by the mighty Nile: “Who is this that rises like the Nile, like rivers of surging waters? Egypt rises like the Nile. . . . She says, ‘I will rise and cover the earth; I will destroy cities and their people’  ” (Jer. 46:7–8).

The Euphrates River

The Euphrates is the westernmost of the two great rivers of Mesopotamia (along with the Tigris [see below]), the land “between the rivers.” As mentioned above, the Euphrates was one of the four rivers flowing from the garden of Eden, according to Gen. 2:14. Along the Euphrates were located the ancient cities of Carchemish, Emar (Tell Meskeneh), Mari, Babylon, and Ur. The Euphrates runs over seventeen hundred miles from northwest to southeast, beginning in the mountains of eastern Turkey before joining with the Tigris and entering the Persian Gulf.

In the Bible, the Euphrates represents the northern boundary of the territory granted to Abraham (Gen. 15:18; see also Exod. 23:31). David extended his territory as far as the Euphrates when he fought the Aramean king Hada-de-zer (2 Sam. 8:3), and so the dimensions of Israel at its apex under Solomon are described as controlling all the kingdoms “from the Euphrates River to the land of the Philistines, as far as the border of Egypt [i.e., the southern limit of his realm]” (1 Kings 4:21).

In addition to its significance as a political boundary, the Euphrates marked an important cultural boundary in Israelite thought. Abraham and his family are remembered as having come from “beyond the Euphrates River” (Josh. 24:2). The exile was described as a scattering “beyond the Euphrates River,” an expression that underscores complete dispossession from Israel’s own land (1 Kings 14:15). Interestingly, the cultures to the east of the Euphrates shared the notion that this river marked a major boundary, as evident from the convention among the Neo-Assyrians and the Persians of referring to western lands by the name “Beyond the River” or “Trans-Euphrates” (Akk. eber-nari; Aram. abar nahara). This was the name of the province encompassing the land of Israel in the time of Ezra (see Ezra 4:10).

Isaiah made use of the association between the Euphrates and the Mesopotamian empires when he likened the king of Assyria to the mighty waters of the river (Isa. 8:7). The Euphrates figures prominently in Revelation, where it restrains punishment from the north, a punishment that is released when God dries up the river, allowing “kings from the East” to cross over (Rev. 9:14; 16:12).

The Tigris River

Along with the Euphrates, the Tigris (Heb. khiddeqel ) was one of the two rivers of ancient Mesopotamia. The Tigris lies east of the Euphrates and runs over a course of approximately 1,150 miles from northwest to southeast, finally joining with the Euphrates and emptying into the Persian Gulf. In antiquity, the cities of Calah, Nineveh, and Ashur lay along the Tigris. The Tigris is mentioned twice in the Bible: first, as one of the four headwaters emanating from the garden of Eden (Gen. 2:14) and, second, as the location of Daniel’s visionary experience (Dan. 10:4).

The Jordan River

The Jordan (Heb. yarden) runs southward from the Hula Valley into the Sea of Galilee (also known as the Sea of Tiberias; modern Lake Kinneret) and from there through a river valley (the “plain of the Jordan” [see Gen. 13:10]) to the Dead Sea. Over its course of approximately 150 miles, it descends dramatically from an elevation of approximately 200 feet in the Hula Valley to an elevation of 690 feet below sea level at the Sea of Galilee, and then farther downward to an elevation of 1,385 feet below sea level at the Dead Sea. Fittingly, the name “Jordan” is related to the Hebrew word yarad (“to go down”).

In the story of the exodus and conquest, the Jordan River marked the boundary of the “promised land,” despite the fact that two and a half tribes received inheritances on the eastern side of the river (the Transjordan [see Num. 32:32; 34:12, 15]). For those living in the land of Israel, the river marked the boundary between them and what they termed “the other side of the Jordan” (Heb. ’eber hayyarden [Num. 32:19; Deut. 1:5]).

In the OT, several memorable stories are set near the Jordan. In addition to Joshua’s dramatic crossing of the Jordan (Josh. 3:1–17), the “fords of the Jordan” were strategic locations, and it was there that the Gileadites slaughtered forty-two thousand Ephraimites as they attempted to return to their territory on the western side of the Jordan (Judg. 12:5). Elisha instructed Naaman, the leprous Aramean general, to bathe seven times in the Jordan for the healing of his condition (2 Kings 5:10). When Elisha’s companions wished to build shelters for themselves, they went to the Jordan, where they knew they would find abundant vegetation and poles (2 Kings 6:2; cf. Zech. 11:3). When one of them dropped an iron ax head into the water, Elisha caused it to float to the surface (2 Kings 6:6–7).

In the NT, the Jordan was the site of much of John the Baptist’s ministry (Matt. 3:5–6; Mark 1:5; Luke 3:3). John 1:28 specifies that John was on the eastern bank (also John 3:26; 10:40). It was in the waters of the Jordan that he baptized those who came to him, including Jesus (Matt. 3:13; Mark 1:9; Luke 3:21).

Tributaries of the Jordan

South of the Sea of Galilee, the Jordan is fed by several tributaries. The Yarmuk River joins the Jordan just south of the lake, draining the biblical region of Bashan to the east. The Wadi Far’ah joins the Jordan from the west, halfway between the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea, and drains the hill country of Ephraim. Nearly across from the Wadi Far’ah, the biblical Jabbok River (Wadi Zerqa) enters the Jordan from the east. In biblical times, the Jabbok was the limit of Ammonite territory (Num. 21:23–24). The Arnon River (Wadi Mujib), not a tributary of the Jordan, enters the Dead Sea from the east, opposite En Gedi. It was the border between the Moabites and the Amorites (Num. 21:13).

The Wadi of Egypt

In a number of texts the “wadi of Egypt” (or “brook of Egypt”) represents the far southern limit of Israelite territory. Some ancient interpreters understood this as referring to the Pelusian branch of the Nile River delta, while most modern scholars favor the Besor River, farther east, in present-day Israel. Besides the Bible, Assyrian texts also refer to the Wadi of Egypt. In 733 BC Tiglath-pileser III set up a victory stela there, perhaps to advertise to the Egyptians the southern extent of the territory that he claimed for Assyria.

Several biblical passages refer to the Shihor River as marking a boundary between Egypt and Israelite territory (Josh. 13:3; 19:26; 1 Chron. 13:5; Isa. 23:3; Jer. 2:18).

The Orontes River

Although it is not mentioned in the Bible, the Orontes marked an important international boundary in the biblical world. The Orontes begins in the Bekaa Valley in present-day Lebanon, then flows northward between the Lebanon and the Anti-Lebanon mountain ranges before turning sharply westward to empty into the Mediterranean Sea. Along the Orontes lay the kingdom of Hamath (see, e.g., 2 Sam. 8:9; 2 Chron. 8:3; Jer. 39:5). Because it ran through a valley that was an artery of travel from north to south, the Orontes was the perennial focus of strategic interest, and several important battles were fought at or near the Orontes. In 1274 BC the Egyptian pharaoh Ramesses II fought the Hittite king Muwatallis II at the Battle of Kadesh. In 853 BC the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III was challenged at Qarqar on the Orontes by a coalition led by Hadadezer of Damascus and including King Ahab of Israel.

Rivers in Cosmology

Genesis 2:10–14 describes the garden in Eden as the source of an unnamed river that subsequently divided into four “headwaters”: the Pishon, the Gihon, the Tigris, and the Euphrates. This description defies any attempt to locate the purported site of Eden in terms of historical geography. The Tigris and the Euphrates do not diverge from a common source, but instead converge before emptying into the Persian Gulf. Moreover, the Gihon, if it is to be identified with the sacred spring of the same name in Jerusalem (1 Kings 1:45), is several hundred miles away from the Tigris and the Euphrates. The Pishon is otherwise unknown. If, as various commentators since antiquity have suggested, the Gihon and the Pishon are to be identified with other great rivers in the same class of importance as the Tigris and the Euphrates (the Nile, the Ganges, etc.), then this would further confound any attempt to understand Gen. 2:10–14 in terms of historical geography. The image of four rivers emanating from a primordial garden and dividing unnaturalistically from a common source is attested in ancient Near Eastern art, notably in the eighteenth-century BC wall painting illustrating the investiture of Zimri-Lim. In this image, two goddesses stand in a paradisiacal garden, guarded by mythical, sphinxlike creatures (cf. the cherubim in Gen. 3:24), holding vessels from which four rivers flow.

In his vision of the restored land of Israel, Ezekiel sees a great river emanating from the temple in Jerusalem, flowing into the Judean desert, and ultimately turning the Dead Sea into freshwater (Ezek. 47:1–12). Along the banks of the river, Ezekiel sees fishermen and perpetually fruitful trees. Similarly, the vision of the new Jerusalem in Rev. 22:1–2 describes a river of the “water of life” flowing through the city and watering trees that bear fruit in every month. In both cases, the visions draw on the notion that Jerusalem is the cultic and religious center of the world and therefore endow its spring—geologically speaking, an insignificant body of water—with a cosmological significance. It was perhaps this same impulse that led the author of Gen. 2:13, probably himself a Jerusalemite, to mention the Gihon in the same class as the Tigris and the Euphrates.

In Ps. 89:25, in the context of a poem describing the adoption of the Davidic king as a divine son, God is described as promising to “set his hand over the sea, his right hand over the rivers.” Like the sea, a symbol of cosmic chaos in ancient Near Eastern mythology, the rivers represent a force that is overcome by the divine warrior and then placed under the subjection of his human representative, the beloved king. In this connection, it is significant that the exodus—in many ways the preeminent foundational moment of the Israelite religion—involved the splitting of both a sea (Exod. 14:21–22) and a river (Josh. 3:16; Ps. 114:3) and the subsequent passage of the Israelites on dry ground. This people-creating deliverance, in turn, is comparable to the account of creation in Gen. 1, where the Creator God drives back the waters to prepare a dry-ground habitation for humanity (vv. 9–10). In Ugaritic mythology, Yamm, the sea god, also bore the epithet “judge river,” underscoring the cosmological connection between sea and river. As we will see, prophetic oracles of divine judgment, especially when they are directed against the river-based civilization of Egypt, often recapitulate the theme of the God of Israel fighting against the river.

The Nile River

The Nile (Heb. ye’or) is fed by two major tributaries: the White Nile, which begins at Lake Victoria, and the Blue Nile, which begins in Ethiopia. At over four thousand miles, the Nile is the longest river in the world. The ancient civilization of Egypt depended entirely on the flow of the Nile and upon its annual flood (the “gift of the Nile”) for irrigation of crops. Even today, arable land along the Nile is confined in some places to an area no more than a few miles from its banks.

Given the dependence of Egyptian civilization on the Nile, especially its annual flood and the accompanying deposit of silt, it is not surprising that the river figured prominently in Egyptian mythology and religion. In particular, the story of the dying and rising god Osiris was linked with the annual ebb and flow of the great river. The annual inundation is still impressive today; an ancient impression may be gleaned from Amos 9:5, where the prophet appeals to the rising and falling of the Nile as a description of divine, earth-melting judgment.

Two of the plagues sent by God upon the Egyptians took place at the Nile, an appropriate setting for a confrontation between the God of Israel and the Egyptian pharaoh, himself a living representation of the Egyptian pantheon. In Ezek. 29:3 the God of Israel says to Pharaoh, “I am against you, Pharaoh king of Egypt, you great monster lying among your streams. You say, ‘The Nile belongs to me; I made it for myself.’  ” Since the Nile was perhaps the preeminent natural or environmental symbol of Egyptian culture, the God of Israel’s assertion of control of that river would have been understood as an unmistakable claim to sovereignty. At the time of the birth of Moses, the Nile was a place of extinction for the Israelites, for Pharaoh had commanded that every boy born to the Hebrews be thrown into the Nile (Exod. 1:22). Ironically, Moses was saved when his mother put him in the Nile in a pitch-coated basket, where he was found by the royal daughter of Pharaoh, who had come to the Nile to bathe (2:3, 5).

God told Moses to confront Pharaoh at the Nile (Exod. 7:15), and the first plague with which God afflicted the Egyptians consisted of turning the Nile into blood, causing its fish to die and rendering its water unsuitable for drinking. The Egyptians were forced to dig wells along its banks (7:20–21). The second plague involved the multiplication of frogs in the Nile, to the point of great inconvenience (8:3).

Isaiah continues the theme of God punishing the Egyptians by attacking the Nile: “The waters of the river will dry up, and the riverbed will be parched and dry. The canals will stink; the streams of Egypt will dwindle and dry up. The reeds and rushes will wither, also the plants along the Nile” (Isa. 19:5–7). The passage goes on to underscore the importance of the Nile as a source of irrigation water and fishing and the devastation that results from the failure of the Nile to flood as expected. In other texts, where the emphasis is on the better fortunes of Egypt, the power of Egypt is symbolized by the mighty Nile: “Who is this that rises like the Nile, like rivers of surging waters? Egypt rises like the Nile. . . . She says, ‘I will rise and cover the earth; I will destroy cities and their people’  ” (Jer. 46:7–8).

The Euphrates River

The Euphrates is the westernmost of the two great rivers of Mesopotamia (along with the Tigris [see below]), the land “between the rivers.” As mentioned above, the Euphrates was one of the four rivers flowing from the garden of Eden, according to Gen. 2:14. Along the Euphrates were located the ancient cities of Carchemish, Emar (Tell Meskeneh), Mari, Babylon, and Ur. The Euphrates runs over seventeen hundred miles from northwest to southeast, beginning in the mountains of eastern Turkey before joining with the Tigris and entering the Persian Gulf.

In the Bible, the Euphrates represents the northern boundary of the territory granted to Abraham (Gen. 15:18; see also Exod. 23:31). David extended his territory as far as the Euphrates when he fought the Aramean king Hada-de-zer (2 Sam. 8:3), and so the dimensions of Israel at its apex under Solomon are described as controlling all the kingdoms “from the Euphrates River to the land of the Philistines, as far as the border of Egypt [i.e., the southern limit of his realm]” (1 Kings 4:21).

In addition to its significance as a political boundary, the Euphrates marked an important cultural boundary in Israelite thought. Abraham and his family are remembered as having come from “beyond the Euphrates River” (Josh. 24:2). The exile was described as a scattering “beyond the Euphrates River,” an expression that underscores complete dispossession from Israel’s own land (1 Kings 14:15). Interestingly, the cultures to the east of the Euphrates shared the notion that this river marked a major boundary, as evident from the convention among the Neo-Assyrians and the Persians of referring to western lands by the name “Beyond the River” or “Trans-Euphrates” (Akk. eber-nari; Aram. abar nahara). This was the name of the province encompassing the land of Israel in the time of Ezra (see Ezra 4:10).

Isaiah made use of the association between the Euphrates and the Mesopotamian empires when he likened the king of Assyria to the mighty waters of the river (Isa. 8:7). The Euphrates figures prominently in Revelation, where it restrains punishment from the north, a punishment that is released when God dries up the river, allowing “kings from the East” to cross over (Rev. 9:14; 16:12).

The Tigris River

Along with the Euphrates, the Tigris (Heb. khiddeqel ) was one of the two rivers of ancient Mesopotamia. The Tigris lies east of the Euphrates and runs over a course of approximately 1,150 miles from northwest to southeast, finally joining with the Euphrates and emptying into the Persian Gulf. In antiquity, the cities of Calah, Nineveh, and Ashur lay along the Tigris. The Tigris is mentioned twice in the Bible: first, as one of the four headwaters emanating from the garden of Eden (Gen. 2:14) and, second, as the location of Daniel’s visionary experience (Dan. 10:4).

The Jordan River

The Jordan (Heb. yarden) runs southward from the Hula Valley into the Sea of Galilee (also known as the Sea of Tiberias; modern Lake Kinneret) and from there through a river valley (the “plain of the Jordan” [see Gen. 13:10]) to the Dead Sea. Over its course of approximately 150 miles, it descends dramatically from an elevation of approximately 200 feet in the Hula Valley to an elevation of 690 feet below sea level at the Sea of Galilee, and then farther downward to an elevation of 1,385 feet below sea level at the Dead Sea. Fittingly, the name “Jordan” is related to the Hebrew word yarad (“to go down”).

In the story of the exodus and conquest, the Jordan River marked the boundary of the “promised land,” despite the fact that two and a half tribes received inheritances on the eastern side of the river (the Transjordan [see Num. 32:32; 34:12, 15]). For those living in the land of Israel, the river marked the boundary between them and what they termed “the other side of the Jordan” (Heb. ’eber hayyarden [Num. 32:19; Deut. 1:5]).

In the OT, several memorable stories are set near the Jordan. In addition to Joshua’s dramatic crossing of the Jordan (Josh. 3:1–17), the “fords of the Jordan” were strategic locations, and it was there that the Gileadites slaughtered forty-two thousand Ephraimites as they attempted to return to their territory on the western side of the Jordan (Judg. 12:5). Elisha instructed Naaman, the leprous Aramean general, to bathe seven times in the Jordan for the healing of his condition (2 Kings 5:10). When Elisha’s companions wished to build shelters for themselves, they went to the Jordan, where they knew they would find abundant vegetation and poles (2 Kings 6:2; cf. Zech. 11:3). When one of them dropped an iron ax head into the water, Elisha caused it to float to the surface (2 Kings 6:6–7).

In the NT, the Jordan was the site of much of John the Baptist’s ministry (Matt. 3:5–6; Mark 1:5; Luke 3:3). John 1:28 specifies that John was on the eastern bank (also John 3:26; 10:40). It was in the waters of the Jordan that he baptized those who came to him, including Jesus (Matt. 3:13; Mark 1:9; Luke 3:21).

Tributaries of the Jordan

South of the Sea of Galilee, the Jordan is fed by several tributaries. The Yarmuk River joins the Jordan just south of the lake, draining the biblical region of Bashan to the east. The Wadi Far’ah joins the Jordan from the west, halfway between the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea, and drains the hill country of Ephraim. Nearly across from the Wadi Far’ah, the biblical Jabbok River (Wadi Zerqa) enters the Jordan from the east. In biblical times, the Jabbok was the limit of Ammonite territory (Num. 21:23–24). The Arnon River (Wadi Mujib), not a tributary of the Jordan, enters the Dead Sea from the east, opposite En Gedi. It was the border between the Moabites and the Amorites (Num. 21:13).

The Wadi of Egypt

In a number of texts the “wadi of Egypt” (or “brook of Egypt”) represents the far southern limit of Israelite territory. Some ancient interpreters understood this as referring to the Pelusian branch of the Nile River delta, while most modern scholars favor the Besor River, farther east, in present-day Israel. Besides the Bible, Assyrian texts also refer to the Wadi of Egypt. In 733 BC Tiglath-pileser III set up a victory stela there, perhaps to advertise to the Egyptians the southern extent of the territory that he claimed for Assyria.

Several biblical passages refer to the Shihor River as marking a boundary between Egypt and Israelite territory (Josh. 13:3; 19:26; 1 Chron. 13:5; Isa. 23:3; Jer. 2:18).

The Orontes River

Although it is not mentioned in the Bible, the Orontes marked an important international boundary in the biblical world. The Orontes begins in the Bekaa Valley in present-day Lebanon, then flows northward between the Lebanon and the Anti-Lebanon mountain ranges before turning sharply westward to empty into the Mediterranean Sea. Along the Orontes lay the kingdom of Hamath (see, e.g., 2 Sam. 8:9; 2 Chron. 8:3; Jer. 39:5). Because it ran through a valley that was an artery of travel from north to south, the Orontes was the perennial focus of strategic interest, and several important battles were fought at or near the Orontes. In 1274 BC the Egyptian pharaoh Ramesses II fought the Hittite king Muwatallis II at the Battle of Kadesh. In 853 BC the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III was challenged at Qarqar on the Orontes by a coalition led by Hadadezer of Damascus and including King Ahab of Israel.

The third of the three sons of Ulla from the tribe of Asher (1 Chron. 7:39).

King Saul’s concubine, with whom he fathered two sons, Armoni and Mephibosheth. She first appears when Saul’s son Ish-Bosheth accuses Abner of having sexual intercourse with her—an innuendo for royal pretensions—which Abner denies (2 Sam. 3:7–10). She reappears in the episode relating to the sacrifice of her sons and their five nephews in Gibeon as atonement for Saul’s alleged brutality against the Gibeonites—David’s remedy for a three-year famine (2 Sam. 21:1–14). Rizpah’s valiant action against the desecration of their corpses by scavenging animals and birds prompts David to order the retrieval of the bones of Saul and his sons from Transjordan and their proper burial in the tomb of Kish (their ancestor) in Gibeah. While Rizpah’s bravery in protecting the corpses of the deceased Saulides parallels that of the men of Jabesh Gilead (1 Sam. 31:8–13), David’s commendation of the latter (2 Sam. 2:5–7) is not extended to her.

This major ancient Near Eastern trade route began in Heliopolis, Egypt, and cut across the Sinai Peninsula to Aqaba (on the shores of the Red Sea). It then headed straight north to Damascus (on the Transjordan side), ending at Resafa on the upper Euphrates River. It was crucial to the trade of Edom, Moab, Ammon, and Syria. Some of the more important cities along this trade route were Heliopolis (Egypt), Clysma (modern Suez), Eilat, Aqaba, Medeba (modern Madaba), Rabbah/Philadelphia (modern Amman), Gerasa, Bozrah, Damascus, and Tadmor. It is mentioned three times in the Bible (Num. 20:17, 19; 21:22), generally referring to the major route through Moab and Ammon.

Grain that was parched or roasted over fire and eaten or used as the primary part of the meal offering (Lev. 2:14). It appears often as a food (Lev. 23:14; Ruth 2:14; 1 Sam. 17:17; 25:18; 2 Sam. 17:28), suggesting that it served as a basic part of people’s diet. Parched grain typically appears with other staples such as bread, beans, flour, and unroasted wheat and barley.

A son of Solomon, he was the first king of Judah (928–911 BC) after the ten northern tribes broke away to form a separate kingdom.

Rehoboam’s mother, Naamah, an Ammonite woman (1 Kings 14:21), contributed to his father’s turning toward the worship of foreign gods. For this reason, the united kingdom of Israel did not survive Solomon’s reign. After his death, the tribe of Judah immediately proclaimed Rehoboam king, but the ten northern tribes imposed conditions on their acceptance of his leadership. Solomon had wrongly oppressed the northern tribes, and they wanted relief from his son. Listening to the counsel of his contemporaries rather than the wiser, older advisers, Rehoboam refused and even boasted that he would increase their work and taxation. They thus rejected him as king and appointed Jeroboam as their king (1 Kings 12:1–24). At first, Rehoboam waged war against the north, but he stopped when the prophet Shemaiah told him that he would fail because of God’s judgment (2 Chron. 11:1–4). He returned south and fortified the border (2 Chron. 11:5–12). Rehoboam, like his father, engaged in false worship, and so God allowed him to be defeated and the temple plundered by King Shishak of Egypt. However, he repented and thus was not completely destroyed (2 Chron. 12).

The acquisition of another’s property by force or threat. This crime was perpetrated by bandits (Hos. 7:1), often through ambush (Judg. 9:25). In Jesus’ parable of the good Samaritan, the robbers’ attack leaves the victim half dead (Luke 10:30). The eighth commandment’s prohibition against stealing (Exod. 20:15; Deut. 5:19) certainly includes robbery, which is explicitly condemned in Lev. 19:13. OT law does not distinguish robbery from theft, which is done by stealth or deception, likely because the unlawful seizure of another’s goods was seen as a civil crime and the legal emphasis was on the restitution of property along with some compensation for distress, which varied according to the item stolen and served as a deterrent to thieves (Exod. 22:1, 4; Lev. 6:1–7). If unable to make restitution, the criminal could be sold into slavery to pay the debt (Exod. 22:3). Should the violence of robbery result in injury, laws concerning personal injury applied (Exod. 21:23–25; Lev. 24:19–20). In fact, under certain conditions, the law addresses an injured thief as the victim and not the perpetrator of violence (Exod. 22:2–3). The two men crucified with Jesus are traditionally described as “robbers” (Matt. 27:38; Mark 15:27), though in this case the Greek word (lēstēs) likely refers to rebels or insurrectionists (NLT: “revolutionaries”). This was the Roman authorities’ way of casting them as common criminals rather than as freedom fighters.

God declares his hatred for robbery, contrasting it with justice (Isa. 61:8). Robbery is often an example of injustice, especially when perpetrated upon the poor (Isa. 10:2; Ezek. 22:29). Rescuing a victim from a robber is enjoined as a just action (Jer. 21:12; 22:3), one for which God himself deserves praise (Ps. 35:10). God describes himself as the victim of robbery as he accuses Israel of stealing from him by withholding its tithes (Mal. 3:8–9).

Greek has two different words to distinguish a robber (lēstēs) from a thief (kleptēs). In the NT, robbery appears primarily as a metaphor. Jesus uses it to represent false prophets (John 10:1, 8), his own plunder of Satan’s house (Matt. 12:29; Mark 3:27), and, in a reference from Jer. 7:11, those seeking economic gain in the temple (Matt. 21:13; Mark 11:17; Luke 19:46).

In the OT, the “rock” (sela’, tsur) is an image of inaccessibility and so of refuge from danger (Isa. 7:19), but rocks will not provide refuge on the day of God’s wrath (Isa. 2:10, 19, 21; Rev. 6:15–16). A great rock providing needed shade (Isa. 32:2) is a variation on this theme of protection. By extension, the image is applied to God himself in poetry (e.g., 2 Sam. 22:2; Ps. 31:3, in both cases parallel with “fortress”). God as the “Rock” is the object of trust (2 Sam. 22:3). This quality is an aspect of his incomparability: “And who is the Rock except our God?” (2 Sam. 22:32).

Repeated references in the OT to the incident in Num. 20 in which God brought water from the rock in the wilderness (e.g., Deut. 8:15; Neh. 9:15; Ps. 78:16) form the background to Paul’s typological identification of Christ with this rock (1 Cor. 10:4). The water from the rock was “spiritual drink” that pointed forward to the later spiritual realities of the Lord’s Supper.

Isaiah 8:14 turns what is usually a positive image of God’s protection into a negative picture of destruction (“a rock that makes them fall”). This verse, together with Isa. 28:16; Ps. 118:22, lies behind the “stone” sayings of Jesus (e.g., Luke 20:18; NIV: “stone”), Paul (Rom. 9:33; NIV: “stone”), and Peter (1 Pet. 2:8) in which Jesus is described as a rock that people stumble over in unbelief.

In the NT, “rock” (Gk. petra) as a solid foundation for a house (as in Jesus’ parable of Matt. 7:24–25) is the idea behind something that Jesus said to Simon, whom he named “Peter” (Gk. petros): Peter’s confession of Jesus as “the Messiah, the Son of the living God” would be the unshakable foundation of the church that Jesus would build (Matt. 16:16–18).

In Lev. 11:5; Deut. 14:7 the NRSV translates the Hebrew word shapan as “rock badger.” The Hebrew term refers to the hyrax (the NIV rendering), a rabbit-sized mammal found throughout the Mediterranean region; although it resembles a rodent, it is a hoofed animal. See also Hyrax.

A gorge or ravine in the wilderness of Maon, south of Hebron and Ziph in Judah, where Saul pursued David until he was informed of a Philistine invasion by a messenger (1 Sam. 23:28). The name means “rock of divisions” (also “rock of parting” [NIV mg.] or “Rock of Escape” [NRSV]) and is currently known as Wadi Malaky. The surrounding landscape is in the mountainous region, with the gorge cutting through it.

(1) Meaning “pomegranate,” it is a common place name, both on its own and in combination. There were settlements by that name in the tribes of Judah, Simeon, Zebulun, Dan, and Manasseh (Josh. 15:32; 19:7–45). One of the resting places during Israel’s wilderness wandering, Rimmon Perez, bore this name (Num. 33:19–20). During the Israelite civil war at Gibeah, a Benjamite remnant of six hundred men took refuge at the “rock of Rimmon” (Judg. 20:45). (See also Remmonmethoar.) (2) The father of Ish-Bosheth’s murderers, a Gibeonite from Beeroth (2 Sam. 4:2–6). (3) An Aramean (and Babylonian) deity, the god of rain (2 Kings 5:18).

A wooden walking stick that could have various functions. In ancient times, people did considerable amounts of walking. The ground in Israel is very uneven and rocky, making a walking stick a useful item (Gen. 32:10; Matt. 10:10). It is likely that walking sticks were customized so that they could serve as identification (Gen. 38:25).

Besides their utilitarian purpose, a rod or staff also came to denote an office and/or one’s authority. Military figures carried staffs that indicated their status (Judg. 5:14), and Gen. 49:10 predicts that the ruler’s staff will not depart from the tribe of Judah. Shepherds also carried a staff (Ps. 23:4; Mic. 7:14).

Sometimes a staff signified the presence of God with an individual. It was symbolic of the tree from which it was made, and a tree sometimes symbolically represented God. For this reason, some divine signs are associated with a raised staff. This was the case of Aaron’s staff. The Red Sea split after Moses extended his rod, and the Israelites had the better of the Amalekites on the battlefield as long as Moses kept the rod above his head. See also Aaron’s Rod.

Descendants of Javan listed in the Adamic chronology of Israel (Gen. 10:4; 1 Chron. 1:7). Most translations read “Rodanim,” and some treat this as the name of an individual (e.g., ESV, NASB, NKJV). Based on name derivation alone, “Rodanim” could be considered the progenitor of the people of Rhodes; however, the name variant “Dodanim” (see KJV) questions this association, although the variant may be a scribal error. See also Dodanim.

Descendants of Javan listed in the Adamic chronology of Israel (Gen. 10:4; 1 Chron. 1:7). Most translations read “Rodanim,” and some treat this as the name of an individual (e.g., ESV, NASB, NKJV). Based on name derivation alone, “Rodanim” could be considered the progenitor of the people of Rhodes; however, the name variant “Dodanim” (see KJV) questions this association, although the variant may be a scribal error. See also Dodanim.

One Hebrew word (’akbar) covers rats, mice, and similar small rodents, which sometimes formed plagues (1 Sam. 6). The OT also mentions rodentlike weasels (kholed [sometimes translated as “rat” or “mole rat”]), hyraxes (shapan), and rabbits or hares (’arnebet). All these animals were unclean because they “swarm,” and hyraxes and rabbits also appear to chew cud. The rendering, in some translations, of qippod as “hedgehog” or “porcupine” is probably incorrect (Isa. 14:23; 34:11 NRSV; Zeph. 2:14 ASV), as is the KJV translation of tanshemet (Lev. 11:30) and khepor (Isa. 2:20) as “mole” (Israel has no moles). Bats, as flying creatures, were grouped with the unclean birds. No rodents are mentioned in the NT.

The Hebrew word for this animal, yakhmur, is usually translated as “roe(buck),” a small, solitary, brown-gray deer relatively rare in Israel. This animal was clean food and was enjoyed by Solomon (Deut. 14:5; 1 Kings 4:23). It may instead be the Bubal hartebeest; archaeologists have found hartebeest bones at Israelite sites.

The Hebrew word for this animal, yakhmur, is usually translated as “roe(buck),” a small, solitary, brown-gray deer relatively rare in Israel. This animal was clean food and was enjoyed by Solomon (Deut. 14:5; 1 Kings 4:23). It may instead be the Bubal hartebeest; archaeologists have found hartebeest bones at Israelite sites.

The hometown in Transjordan of Barzillai the Gileadite (2 Sam. 17:27), who escorted David to the Jordan River (2 Sam. 19:31). The meaning of the name, “treaders,” may indicate the local industry. It possibly was located at Tell Barsina or Zaharet’s Soq’ah.

References to “books” in biblical narratives are more properly said to indicate scrolls, that is, book rolls, made from papyrus, tanned hides of sheep and goats (as were most of the DSS), or parchment (hides with the hair removed and rubbed clean) (2 Tim. 4:13). They were unrolled for reading (Luke 4:17, 20) and could be secured with a wax seal (Rev. 5:1). The physical limitations of scroll length probably affected the size of biblical books. Almost invariably, only one side was written on, which makes Ezek. 2:9–10 and Rev. 5:1 exceptional. See also Books; Writing Implements and Materials.

In Ezek. 30:21 the KJV translates the Hebrew word khittul as “roller,” referring to a splint (NIV) or bandage (NRSV).

A Levitical musician and descendant of Heman at the time of David (1 Chron. 25:4).

The historical origins of Christianity need to be set against Jewish history, beliefs, and culture in Palestine and the eastern Mediterranean, but they also need to be set in the context of the wider Greco-Roman world that was dominated politically and militarily by the Roman Empire.

From Republic to Empire

Rome began as a city-state but soon became a transcontinental empire reaching over parts of Europe, Africa, and Asia. Rome emerged as the most dominant force in the Mediterranean after it defeated Carthage in the Second Punic War (218–201 BC). Thereafter, Rome began to expand its control and power over the various Hellenistic city-states in the east, including Macedonia, Illyria, and Asia Minor. By the mid-first century AD, Rome had also conquered or annexed Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Cyrene, Gaul, Spain, North Africa, and Armenia.

The transition from the Roman Republic to the Roman Empire took place under the Roman emperors beginning with Julius Caesar (100–44 BC), who, after crossing the Rubicon and defeating Pompey, was proclaimed dictator perpetuus (“dictator for life”). The period after Julius Caesar’s assassination (44 BC) was a time of political upheaval as Rome was marred by a series of civil wars. The first was between Octavius and Antony against Caesar’s assassins Brutus and Cassius. This climaxed in the Battle of Philippi (42 BC), which the former allies of Julius Caesar won. The second was between Octavius and Antony, where Antony and Cleopatra were defeated at the Battle of Actium in 31 BC, leaving Octavius as the undisputed leader of Rome.

Octavius was given the honorific name “Augustus” by the senate. His reign (31 BC–AD 14) marked a period of consolidation, reorganization, and renewal of the Roman Empire. Augustus embarked on an empire-wide policy of fiscal rationalization, developed a constitutional settlement for Rome, centralized his military authority over the various provinces, and had Julius Caesar deified. Writers and artists of the era heralded Augustus’s reign as a time of unprecedented peace and security—peace from civil war and security from the Germanic tribes in the north and the Parthian Empire in the east. Worship of the emperor became more frequent especially in the Roman East, although Augustus did not permit it in Rome. What is most significant about Augustus is that it is with his reign that the Roman Empire essentially began. He was the emperor at the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:1). It was under Trajan (AD 98–117), however, that the Roman Empire expanded to its largest area, encompassing parts of Britain and Persia.

Emperors (AD 14–98)

Tiberius, Augustus’s adopted heir, reigned in the years AD 14–37. He was a highly successful military general, but as emperor he was remembered as being gloomy and melancholic. Tiberius even went into a self-imposed exile for a time, leaving the praetorian prefect Sejanus in charge until Tiberius finally had him executed for treason. It was during the reign of Tiberius that Jesus conducted his ministry in Palestine.

Tiberius was succeeded by his adopted grandson Caligula, who reigned in the years AD 37–41. Caligula was the son of the popular Roman general Germanicus, who died in Antioch in AD 19. Historical sources are not favorably disposed toward Caligula, who was remembered as a malevolent tyrant given to self-aggrandizement and sexual perversity. In AD 39/40 Caligula departed from imperial policy that permitted emperor worship in the east and veneration of deceased emperors in Rome, and he often appeared dressed as a god in public and demanded worship as a living god. During this time he deposed Herod Antipas, the tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, on suspicion of consorting with Parthia (Josephus, Ant. 18.7). Caligula also ordered that his statue be placed in the holy of holies in the Jerusalem temple (Philo, Embassy 203). Petronius, the governor of Syria, knowing that such an act would lead to civil war, refused to comply and appealed to Caligula to reverse the order. In response, Caligula sent an order to Petronius that he commit suicide. Fortunately, news of Caligula’s assassination by a conspiracy involving the praetorian guard and senators reached Petronius first.

Claudius, Caligula’s uncle, reigned in the years AD 41–54, and his rule was defined by numerous public works, a reordering of the judicial system, a torrid series of marriages, the conquest of Britain, and a number of attempted coups by the Roman senate. In AD 49 he expelled the Jews from Rome because of disputes about a certain “Chrestus,” probably Christ (cf. Acts 18:2). No one is sure whether Claudius was murdered or died of old age, but he remained a sharp contrast to the brutal excesses of Caligula and Nero.

Nero, the stepson of Claudius, reigned in the years AD 54–68. The early period of his rule was marked by cultural endeavors and diplomatic efforts. The later years were, in contrast, distinguished by tyranny and self-aggrandizement. There was a Jewish revolt against Rome in Judea (AD 66–70) during Nero’s reign, and Vespasian was sent to pacify the territory. According to ancient sources, Nero accused Christians of starting the fire of Rome in AD 64 and subjected them to the cruelest of punishments, including crucifixion, being thrown to wild animals, and even being burned alive. It probably was during this time that the apostles Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome. Nero eventually was declared a public enemy by the Roman senate, and he committed suicide before he could be captured in AD 68. There arose a “Nero redivivus” legend, whereby many hoped or feared that Nero had not died in AD 68 but had fled to Parthia and would return to Rome in order to destroy it (Sib. Or. 4.119–124; 5.137–141, 361–396), and this arguably stands behind the imagery of Rev. 13:3; 17:8–11.

The suicide of Nero left a power vacuum in Rome, and AD 69 saw no less than four emperors ascend the throne: Galba, Otho, Vitellius, and finally Vespasian. Galba was governor of Hispania Tarraconensis and was invited to become emperor by the senate, but he was killed by the praetorian guard after they were bribed by the praetor Otho. Otho himself committed suicide after his forces were defeated by Vitellius, the commander of the legions on the Rhine. Vitellius became emperor, but he was fiscally irresponsible and murdered many of his rivals. The legions in the Danube, Egypt, Syria, and Judea had declared Vespasian emperor and marched on Rome. Vespasian controlled the grain supplies to Rome from Egypt and had a superior force. Vitellius’s forces were defeated at Bedriacum, and Vitellius went into hiding but eventually was killed in Rome. Vespasian was declared emperor by the senate, and so began the Flavian dynasty, which restored order after the chaos of civil war.

The Flavians ruled in the years AD 69–96. Vespasian (r. AD 69–79) consolidated the empire after its year of strife and instituted new taxes, such as the fiscus judaicus, a war reparation tax placed on all Jews and paid to the temple of Jupiter in lieu of the Jerusalem temple tax. Vespasian was succeeded by his sons Titus (r. AD 79–81) and Domitian (r. AD 81–96). When Vespasian sailed to Rome from Judea, Titus was left in charge of the siege of Jerusalem, which he completed and celebrated in a triumph in Rome in AD 72. This triumph is memorialized in the Arch of Titus, which depicts Roman soldiers bringing the vessels of the temple to Rome as part of the booty taken. Later Roman writers regarded Domitian as a malevolent and malicious tyrant (e.g., Tacitus, Suetonius), but this probably is an exaggeration caused partly by a desire to highlight the greatness of succeeding emperors such as Nerva and Trajan. It probably was during the reign of Domitian that some Christians in Asia Minor were being persecuted for their failure to worship the emperor, as depicted in the book of Revelation.

Table 7. Roman Emperors (31 BC–AD 117)

31 BC-AD 14 – Augustus

AD 14-37 – Tiberius

AD 37-41 – Caligula

AD 41-54 – Claudius

AD 54-68 – Nero

AD 68-69 – Galba

AD 69 – Otho

AD 69 – Vitellius

AD 69-79 – Vespasian

AD 79-81 – Titus

AD 81-96 – Domitian

AD 96-98 – Nerva

AD 98-117 – Trajan

Military

Military expeditions expanded Rome’s control of foreign territories and safeguarded its borders from incursion, most threateningly from the Germanic tribes east of the Rhine River and north of the Danube River and from the Parthian (= Neo-Persian) Empire east of the Euphrates River. A Roman legion consisted of around six thousand men, including cavalry. Under Tiberius, there were twenty-five legions stationed across the empire: eight on the Rhine, three in Spain, two in Egypt, four in Syria, two in Africa, and six in the Danube region. In terms of command structures, the legions were under the control of certain regional commands by men of consular rank, including two on the Rhine, one in Spain, one in Syria, and three in the Balkans (Tacitus, Ann. 4.5). These were among the most powerful persons outside the ruling family and could be kingmakers or contenders during times of civil war. A legion was divided into ten cohorts and commanded by a legate, usually of senatorial rank. Units of one hundred were commanded by centurions, and service in the legions was set at between twenty and twenty-five years. Upon recruitment, the soldier swore an oath of loyalty to the emperor (sacramentum) that was renewed annually. During times of peace, Roman soldiers could perform a number of civil tasks relating to taxation, building projects, and policing.

Centurions are mentioned several times in the NT (e.g., Matt. 8:5; Mark 15:39; Acts 10:1; 21:32; 27:1). There is a mention of a “legion” of demons that oppressed the Gerasene demoniac (Mark 5:9), and Jesus refers to the possibility of the Father sending him “legions” of angels (Matt. 26:53). Military terminology is very apparent in Paul’s letters, where he refers to fighting armor (Rom. 13:11–13; 2 Cor. 6:7; Eph. 6:10–18), compares commitment to Christ to military service (2 Tim. 2:4), refers to his coworkers as “soldiers” or “fellow soldiers” (Phil. 2:25; Philem. 2; 2 Tim. 2:3), and likens ministerial remuneration to a soldier being paid his salarium (1 Cor. 9:7).

Culture and Religion

One of the primary reasons for Rome’s rise and dominance, militarily and culturally, was its capacity to absorb other peoples and even other gods into its constituency and pantheon. Its constantly growing pantheon, application of the rule of law, and superior military force made Rome what it was: a melting pot of all cultures and a Romanizer of other cultures.

Roman society was heavily stratified, but social mobility, upward and downward, was possible. Wealth, marriage, education, and military exploits were the primary means to social advancement. The senatorial class represented the wealthy nobility of Rome and provided the primary cohort of civil and military administrators. The equestrian class (or “knights,” as they are sometimes called) were a larger group of less wealthy Roman citizens. Decurions were members of civil councils in provincial cities who often acted as magistrates and were leaders of local communities. The plebeians represented the general citizenry of Rome, who, until the time of Tiberius, had some power in electing officials. Finally, there were freedmen, who were ex-slaves usually in a relationship with their former master, and also slaves, who were regarded as little more than property.

The ancient Roman religions focused on the numen, the somewhat impersonal divine power associated with certain localities. From the third century BC, Greek deities were assimilated and Romanized, so that Zeus became Jupiter, and Vesta was identified as Hestia. The Capitoline Hill was crowned with a temple that was dedicated around 500 BC to Jupiter, Minerva, and Juno. These were the principal gods of Rome, although others were added to the pantheon as the Romans conquered other peoples and adopted their gods. Other gods also received greater honor, such as the goddess Pax, the personification of peace (based on the Greek goddess Eirene); Vespasian built and dedicated a temple in her honor in Rome in AD 75. The Roman emperor was the Pontifex Maximus and supreme high priest of Rome and the empire. In the mid- to late first century AD, the fastest-growing religion was the imperial cult, the worship of (usually) deceased Roman emperors. This cult became popular in the eastern Mediterranean cities, where worship of rulers was commonplace, but was regarded with indifference in Rome.

Religions and philosophies from all over the known world eventually made their way to Rome. Egyptian rites and religions gained followings, Mithraism acquired currency within the ranks of the military and among public servants, Judaism entered Rome probably with the Hasmonean delegation sent there around 139 BC, and Christianity came to Rome probably during the late 30s and early 40s of the first century AD through Jewish pilgrims visiting the east and through Judean immigration to Rome. Many Roman intellectuals lamented the fact that so many foreign superstitions had found their way to Rome, and that Roman peoples found them more attractive than their own state religion. Roman religion was largely controlled by the state through a set calendar and the appointment of priests and vestal virgins. It was practiced in public and in the home. As such, religious life was very much intertwined with social and political life. Roman religion engendered the need for its citizens to act with pietas, the honoring of one’s obligations to the gods, and with religio, which designated appropriate scruples and rites in the presence of the gods.

Summary

The birth of the church and the growth of Christianity took place within the wider social, religious, and cultural context of the Greco-Roman world. The politics and power of the Roman Empire provide the backdrop for the birth of Jesus (Luke 2:1), and since Rome was considered to be the center of the world, it was necessary that Paul himself testify to Jesus Christ there (Acts 19:21). The history, literature, and cultural background of Rome form an important background to the NT and should be studied along with the history and literature of Judaism during the time of Jesus and the apostles. Although the Romans were the primary threat to the survival of Christians in the ancient world, after the conversion of Constantine in the fourth century AD, they became the primary means by which Christianity spread to the rest of Europe and western Asia. See also Roman Law.

To understand the persons and events of the NT, it is important to have at least a cursory understanding of Roman law. Rome held absolute power over its people and vassals from the time of its foundation (c. 750 BC) until the collapse of its empire (c. AD 500); thus, its understanding of law had influence on both philosophical and pragmatic levels. Roman law was remarkable for the detailed yet succinct way cases were treated. Roman law was primarily private law in character; that is, it was law focused on relationships between people. Fathers of families were significant figures in Roman law and custom. They held great power over their wives, children, and slaves. Precedent also played an important role in Roman law, with ritualized legal formulas and style being the key components. Generally speaking, parties determined the outcome between themselves with the help of an arbitrator. Only when such arbitration was unsuccessful, or at the end of arbitration when contractual steps had to be taken, was a jurist/judge brought in. Public trials were more a case of oratory and debate than legal wrangling and procedure.

Roman citizenship. Much of Roman law and activity was dependent on the status of the participants. Roman citizenship itself carried with it a privileged status in terms of law, property, and governance. Citizenship and the rights related to it also varied, depending on the class of the person. The native peoples who lived in territories conquered by Rome, citizens of Roman client states, and Roman allies could be given a limited form of Roman citizenship such as the Latin Right, which permitted land ownership, marriage rights, and certain rights in matters of punishment and detainment. Women’s rights varied over time; however, women were never accorded all the rights of citizens, since they could not vote or hold office. They could, however, own property. Slaves were considered property and had only certain very limited rights as granted by statute. They could essentially be treated in any fashion considered appropriate by their owners. Despite this, a freed slave was granted a form of Roman citizenship. All slaves freed by Roman owners automatically received a limited Roman citizenship. The law of the magistrates as applied to foreigners focused on three areas of interest: trade law, finding a way to apply Roman law to foreign societies, and the procurator’s own sense of fair play and justice.

Paul was a Roman citizen from birth (Acts 22:28), though given his lineage, this citizenship would have been similar to that of the Latin Right. He took advantage of his citizenship at numerous points during his missionary travels by limiting punishment and by an appeal to Caesar (Acts 22:24–29; 25:10–12). There is little information about how people were able to document their citizenship, though undoubtedly some sort of official document would have served such a purpose.

Household and family. As noted above, the father of a household had almost absolute power in that sphere. In relation to this, Paul and Peter’s instructions to the various churches about household relationships stand in stark contrast to the culture within which they were expressed (see Eph. 5:21; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1 Pet. 2:18–3:7). Like Jews, Romans viewed the family as the core element of their society. What occurred in the family was an expression of the core values of the society. For the church to have granted the freedom it did to women and others (Gal. 3:28) would have been difficult for many in the culture to accept. Furthermore, Paul in several places seems to call for restraint in Christian expression of freedom so as not to cause ill repute for the Christian community.

History and hierarchy. Concerning Roman jurisprudence, the system went through many phases of development over the periods of the republic and the empire. During the period of the republic (753–31 BC), the civil law was the primary focus of development. Roman law, like other ancient systems, originally adopted the principle of personality: laws of the state applied only to its citizens. Foreigners had no rights in their courts unless protected by a treaty. Gradually, a more generalized legal code developed in Rome that was applied to everyone, and by the time of the empire, such perspectives of law were well established. This may explain the different treatment received by Paul (and others) in relationship to whether they were known to be citizens.

Procurators and prefects were governors appointed by Rome over Judea after the removal of Archelaus in AD 6 and over all of Palestine at the death of Herod Agrippa. Governors such as Pontius Pilate were the highest power in their province, but they answered to the legate, who could replace them, and ultimately to Caesar, who could overrule them. They had to give their assent to lower local courts before a sentence involving death could be carried out. Because of the lower standing that noncitizens held, the governor often was quick to sacrifice them in order to maintain peace and avoid disturbances. Pilate’s treatment of Jesus seems to fall into such a category.

In general, disputes between members of the same subject state were settled by that state’s own courts according to its own law, whereas disputes between provincials of different states or between provincials and Romans were resolved by the governor’s court applying these principles.

Religion. Since Rome had no centralized cult, the Romans would not execute someone simply on religious grounds. Instead, there needed to be a perception of political revolt, and the charges had to be specific (Matt. 27:12; John 18:29). Because Roman law and trial were more a matter of oratory and reason than legal maneuvering and loopholes, it is not surprising that both Pilate and Felix allowed such leeway in the questioning of Jesus and Paul (John 18; Acts 24).

The historical origins of Christianity need to be set against Jewish history, beliefs, and culture in Palestine and the eastern Mediterranean, but they also need to be set in the context of the wider Greco-Roman world that was dominated politically and militarily by the Roman Empire.

From Republic to Empire

Rome began as a city-state but soon became a transcontinental empire reaching over parts of Europe, Africa, and Asia. Rome emerged as the most dominant force in the Mediterranean after it defeated Carthage in the Second Punic War (218–201 BC). Thereafter, Rome began to expand its control and power over the various Hellenistic city-states in the east, including Macedonia, Illyria, and Asia Minor. By the mid-first century AD, Rome had also conquered or annexed Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Cyrene, Gaul, Spain, North Africa, and Armenia.

The transition from the Roman Republic to the Roman Empire took place under the Roman emperors beginning with Julius Caesar (100–44 BC), who, after crossing the Rubicon and defeating Pompey, was proclaimed dictator perpetuus (“dictator for life”). The period after Julius Caesar’s assassination (44 BC) was a time of political upheaval as Rome was marred by a series of civil wars. The first was between Octavius and Antony against Caesar’s assassins Brutus and Cassius. This climaxed in the Battle of Philippi (42 BC), which the former allies of Julius Caesar won. The second was between Octavius and Antony, where Antony and Cleopatra were defeated at the Battle of Actium in 31 BC, leaving Octavius as the undisputed leader of Rome.

Octavius was given the honorific name “Augustus” by the senate. His reign (31 BC–AD 14) marked a period of consolidation, reorganization, and renewal of the Roman Empire. Augustus embarked on an empire-wide policy of fiscal rationalization, developed a constitutional settlement for Rome, centralized his military authority over the various provinces, and had Julius Caesar deified. Writers and artists of the era heralded Augustus’s reign as a time of unprecedented peace and security—peace from civil war and security from the Germanic tribes in the north and the Parthian Empire in the east. Worship of the emperor became more frequent especially in the Roman East, although Augustus did not permit it in Rome. What is most significant about Augustus is that it is with his reign that the Roman Empire essentially began. He was the emperor at the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:1). It was under Trajan (AD 98–117), however, that the Roman Empire expanded to its largest area, encompassing parts of Britain and Persia.

Emperors (AD 14–98)

Tiberius, Augustus’s adopted heir, reigned in the years AD 14–37. He was a highly successful military general, but as emperor he was remembered as being gloomy and melancholic. Tiberius even went into a self-imposed exile for a time, leaving the praetorian prefect Sejanus in charge until Tiberius finally had him executed for treason. It was during the reign of Tiberius that Jesus conducted his ministry in Palestine.

Tiberius was succeeded by his adopted grandson Caligula, who reigned in the years AD 37–41. Caligula was the son of the popular Roman general Germanicus, who died in Antioch in AD 19. Historical sources are not favorably disposed toward Caligula, who was remembered as a malevolent tyrant given to self-aggrandizement and sexual perversity. In AD 39/40 Caligula departed from imperial policy that permitted emperor worship in the east and veneration of deceased emperors in Rome, and he often appeared dressed as a god in public and demanded worship as a living god. During this time he deposed Herod Antipas, the tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, on suspicion of consorting with Parthia (Josephus, Ant. 18.7). Caligula also ordered that his statue be placed in the holy of holies in the Jerusalem temple (Philo, Embassy 203). Petronius, the governor of Syria, knowing that such an act would lead to civil war, refused to comply and appealed to Caligula to reverse the order. In response, Caligula sent an order to Petronius that he commit suicide. Fortunately, news of Caligula’s assassination by a conspiracy involving the praetorian guard and senators reached Petronius first.

Claudius, Caligula’s uncle, reigned in the years AD 41–54, and his rule was defined by numerous public works, a reordering of the judicial system, a torrid series of marriages, the conquest of Britain, and a number of attempted coups by the Roman senate. In AD 49 he expelled the Jews from Rome because of disputes about a certain “Chrestus,” probably Christ (cf. Acts 18:2). No one is sure whether Claudius was murdered or died of old age, but he remained a sharp contrast to the brutal excesses of Caligula and Nero.

Nero, the stepson of Claudius, reigned in the years AD 54–68. The early period of his rule was marked by cultural endeavors and diplomatic efforts. The later years were, in contrast, distinguished by tyranny and self-aggrandizement. There was a Jewish revolt against Rome in Judea (AD 66–70) during Nero’s reign, and Vespasian was sent to pacify the territory. According to ancient sources, Nero accused Christians of starting the fire of Rome in AD 64 and subjected them to the cruelest of punishments, including crucifixion, being thrown to wild animals, and even being burned alive. It probably was during this time that the apostles Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome. Nero eventually was declared a public enemy by the Roman senate, and he committed suicide before he could be captured in AD 68. There arose a “Nero redivivus” legend, whereby many hoped or feared that Nero had not died in AD 68 but had fled to Parthia and would return to Rome in order to destroy it (Sib. Or. 4.119–124; 5.137–141, 361–396), and this arguably stands behind the imagery of Rev. 13:3; 17:8–11.

The suicide of Nero left a power vacuum in Rome, and AD 69 saw no less than four emperors ascend the throne: Galba, Otho, Vitellius, and finally Vespasian. Galba was governor of Hispania Tarraconensis and was invited to become emperor by the senate, but he was killed by the praetorian guard after they were bribed by the praetor Otho. Otho himself committed suicide after his forces were defeated by Vitellius, the commander of the legions on the Rhine. Vitellius became emperor, but he was fiscally irresponsible and murdered many of his rivals. The legions in the Danube, Egypt, Syria, and Judea had declared Vespasian emperor and marched on Rome. Vespasian controlled the grain supplies to Rome from Egypt and had a superior force. Vitellius’s forces were defeated at Bedriacum, and Vitellius went into hiding but eventually was killed in Rome. Vespasian was declared emperor by the senate, and so began the Flavian dynasty, which restored order after the chaos of civil war.

The Flavians ruled in the years AD 69–96. Vespasian (r. AD 69–79) consolidated the empire after its year of strife and instituted new taxes, such as the fiscus judaicus, a war reparation tax placed on all Jews and paid to the temple of Jupiter in lieu of the Jerusalem temple tax. Vespasian was succeeded by his sons Titus (r. AD 79–81) and Domitian (r. AD 81–96). When Vespasian sailed to Rome from Judea, Titus was left in charge of the siege of Jerusalem, which he completed and celebrated in a triumph in Rome in AD 72. This triumph is memorialized in the Arch of Titus, which depicts Roman soldiers bringing the vessels of the temple to Rome as part of the booty taken. Later Roman writers regarded Domitian as a malevolent and malicious tyrant (e.g., Tacitus, Suetonius), but this probably is an exaggeration caused partly by a desire to highlight the greatness of succeeding emperors such as Nerva and Trajan. It probably was during the reign of Domitian that some Christians in Asia Minor were being persecuted for their failure to worship the emperor, as depicted in the book of Revelation.

Table 7. Roman Emperors (31 BC–AD 117)

31 BC-AD 14 – Augustus

AD 14-37 – Tiberius

AD 37-41 – Caligula

AD 41-54 – Claudius

AD 54-68 – Nero

AD 68-69 – Galba

AD 69 – Otho

AD 69 – Vitellius

AD 69-79 – Vespasian

AD 79-81 – Titus

AD 81-96 – Domitian

AD 96-98 – Nerva

AD 98-117 – Trajan

Military

Military expeditions expanded Rome’s control of foreign territories and safeguarded its borders from incursion, most threateningly from the Germanic tribes east of the Rhine River and north of the Danube River and from the Parthian (= Neo-Persian) Empire east of the Euphrates River. A Roman legion consisted of around six thousand men, including cavalry. Under Tiberius, there were twenty-five legions stationed across the empire: eight on the Rhine, three in Spain, two in Egypt, four in Syria, two in Africa, and six in the Danube region. In terms of command structures, the legions were under the control of certain regional commands by men of consular rank, including two on the Rhine, one in Spain, one in Syria, and three in the Balkans (Tacitus, Ann. 4.5). These were among the most powerful persons outside the ruling family and could be kingmakers or contenders during times of civil war. A legion was divided into ten cohorts and commanded by a legate, usually of senatorial rank. Units of one hundred were commanded by centurions, and service in the legions was set at between twenty and twenty-five years. Upon recruitment, the soldier swore an oath of loyalty to the emperor (sacramentum) that was renewed annually. During times of peace, Roman soldiers could perform a number of civil tasks relating to taxation, building projects, and policing.

Centurions are mentioned several times in the NT (e.g., Matt. 8:5; Mark 15:39; Acts 10:1; 21:32; 27:1). There is a mention of a “legion” of demons that oppressed the Gerasene demoniac (Mark 5:9), and Jesus refers to the possibility of the Father sending him “legions” of angels (Matt. 26:53). Military terminology is very apparent in Paul’s letters, where he refers to fighting armor (Rom. 13:11–13; 2 Cor. 6:7; Eph. 6:10–18), compares commitment to Christ to military service (2 Tim. 2:4), refers to his coworkers as “soldiers” or “fellow soldiers” (Phil. 2:25; Philem. 2; 2 Tim. 2:3), and likens ministerial remuneration to a soldier being paid his salarium (1 Cor. 9:7).

Culture and Religion

One of the primary reasons for Rome’s rise and dominance, militarily and culturally, was its capacity to absorb other peoples and even other gods into its constituency and pantheon. Its constantly growing pantheon, application of the rule of law, and superior military force made Rome what it was: a melting pot of all cultures and a Romanizer of other cultures.

Roman society was heavily stratified, but social mobility, upward and downward, was possible. Wealth, marriage, education, and military exploits were the primary means to social advancement. The senatorial class represented the wealthy nobility of Rome and provided the primary cohort of civil and military administrators. The equestrian class (or “knights,” as they are sometimes called) were a larger group of less wealthy Roman citizens. Decurions were members of civil councils in provincial cities who often acted as magistrates and were leaders of local communities. The plebeians represented the general citizenry of Rome, who, until the time of Tiberius, had some power in electing officials. Finally, there were freedmen, who were ex-slaves usually in a relationship with their former master, and also slaves, who were regarded as little more than property.

The ancient Roman religions focused on the numen, the somewhat impersonal divine power associated with certain localities. From the third century BC, Greek deities were assimilated and Romanized, so that Zeus became Jupiter, and Vesta was identified as Hestia. The Capitoline Hill was crowned with a temple that was dedicated around 500 BC to Jupiter, Minerva, and Juno. These were the principal gods of Rome, although others were added to the pantheon as the Romans conquered other peoples and adopted their gods. Other gods also received greater honor, such as the goddess Pax, the personification of peace (based on the Greek goddess Eirene); Vespasian built and dedicated a temple in her honor in Rome in AD 75. The Roman emperor was the Pontifex Maximus and supreme high priest of Rome and the empire. In the mid- to late first century AD, the fastest-growing religion was the imperial cult, the worship of (usually) deceased Roman emperors. This cult became popular in the eastern Mediterranean cities, where worship of rulers was commonplace, but was regarded with indifference in Rome.

Religions and philosophies from all over the known world eventually made their way to Rome. Egyptian rites and religions gained followings, Mithraism acquired currency within the ranks of the military and among public servants, Judaism entered Rome probably with the Hasmonean delegation sent there around 139 BC, and Christianity came to Rome probably during the late 30s and early 40s of the first century AD through Jewish pilgrims visiting the east and through Judean immigration to Rome. Many Roman intellectuals lamented the fact that so many foreign superstitions had found their way to Rome, and that Roman peoples found them more attractive than their own state religion. Roman religion was largely controlled by the state through a set calendar and the appointment of priests and vestal virgins. It was practiced in public and in the home. As such, religious life was very much intertwined with social and political life. Roman religion engendered the need for its citizens to act with pietas, the honoring of one’s obligations to the gods, and with religio, which designated appropriate scruples and rites in the presence of the gods.

Summary

The birth of the church and the growth of Christianity took place within the wider social, religious, and cultural context of the Greco-Roman world. The politics and power of the Roman Empire provide the backdrop for the birth of Jesus (Luke 2:1), and since Rome was considered to be the center of the world, it was necessary that Paul himself testify to Jesus Christ there (Acts 19:21). The history, literature, and cultural background of Rome form an important background to the NT and should be studied along with the history and literature of Judaism during the time of Jesus and the apostles. Although the Romans were the primary threat to the survival of Christians in the ancient world, after the conversion of Constantine in the fourth century AD, they became the primary means by which Christianity spread to the rest of Europe and western Asia. See also Roman Law.

Architecture is the technology and the art of design and construction. The technology of architecture includes an understanding of mathematical and engineering principles; the art of architecture focuses attention on interest and beauty in design. The creative imagination of the architect is constantly considering how to artfully manage form and function in the design and construction process.

Architecture and the Bible

The term “architecture” does not occur in most English translations of the Bible. There is, however, evidence of and reference to the architectural activity of God’s people. In addition, Israel and the church were contextualized in significant architectural periods (Egyptian, Assyrian, Greek, and Roman), so the major empires of the biblical period often influenced the design and construction of cities, temples, and structures referenced in the biblical text. Architecture offers biblical studies a way to better understand the historical intentions of the Bible. By means of architectural investigation, the history and the heritage of past civilizations are illuminated. As a result, our reading of the biblical text is enhanced.

When we investigate the biblical text with attention to the technology and art of architecture, two perspectives emerge. First, architecture draws our attention to the background of the biblical text. In certain biblical texts we learn about the design and the construction that took place in Egypt, Assyria, and Palestine during major biblical events. For example, the patriarchal and Mosaic periods occurred during times of expansion and development in the Eighteenth to Twentieth Dynasties of Egypt (i.e., New Kingdom, sixteenth to eleventh centuries BC). For these periods, we gain knowledge about capital relocations along with temple and pyramid constructions. We learn that during the conquest, Israel took over existing Canaanite cities in keeping with the Mosaic policies. The architecture of Palestine enables us to better understand the form and function of these infrastructures.

Second, architecture draws our attention to the theological implications of the form and function of structures designed by God. In keeping with the scope of architecture, we are forced to understand that what God designed for altars, the ark, the tabernacle, and the temples of the past and the future included more than just the functional requirements of a nation’s religious system. The interpreter of the biblical text must consider how the design of these structures elicits response and communicates meaning. These structures are also windows on the social, political, and economic aspects of the Israelite nation.

Old Testament

Cities and fortifications. The biblical rec­ord makes reference to architectural structures, materials, and furnishings. Cities are referenced frequently throughout the OT canon. The city is obviously the context for architectural expression. The cities of the Bible are not described in extensive detail. We learn that Cain was a city builder who named his work after his son Enoch. The architectural feature of cities mentioned most often is the city gates (Gen. 19:1; 23:10, 18; Deut. 17:5; Josh. 2:5; 7:5; 20:4; Judg. 5:8). This was an important place for city life and activity (Gen. 23:1; Prov. 31:31). There was also sinister activity at city gates. Abner, for example, was killed in the city gate (2 Sam. 3:22–30). In addition, executions for covenant violations were carried out at the city gate (Deut. 17:5). There was more than one city gate, as we learn from the postexilic construction activity of Ezra and Nehemiah.

Within the city there was a strong tower. The people of Babel used thoroughly baked bricks instead of stone and tar for mortar in order to build the city and the tower that was designed to reach to the heavens (Gen. 11:3–4). A city tower functioned as a place of refuge for the people within the city limits (Judg. 9:49–51).

Cities were protected by a wall system (Lev. 25:29) that also provided space for housing (Josh. 2:15). The conquest of Jericho recounts the familiar defeat of that city by the very unconventional destruction of its walls (Josh. 6:20). A city square is another feature of the city architecture (Judg. 19:15–17) that served the public needs of the community.

The biblical descriptions of Jerusalem offer a measure of insight into its architecture. During the rebuilding process in the postexilic period, Nehemiah comments on both the construction and the building materials (Neh. 2:8; 13:31; cf. Ezra 6:4) and the spacious nature of the city (Neh. 7:4). From another perspective, the psalmist comments, “Jerusalem is built like a city that is closely compacted together” (Ps. 122:3).

Beyond these textual details we learn through the writings of the prophets that cities are the subject of God’s wrath for covenant violation (Jer. 6:6; Hos. 11:6; Mic. 5:11). Despite this, the nation of Israel is not left without the hope of restoration. The prophets also anticipated the return of the people along with the restoration of the city infrastructure (Amos 9:14; Mal. 1:4).

The temple and sacred structures. The other architectural features referenced by the writers of Scripture include altars, the tabernacle, the tent of meeting, and the temple. The tent and the tabernacle were also outfitted with unique furniture items described in detail and expertly crafted. The construction projects of Solomon are detailed in 1 Kings 5–7. Solomon, like David, pursued his architectural ambitions. The book of Ezekiel gives extensive architectural detail for the construction of a future temple in which God will reign and rule (Ezek. 40–48).

The temple and royal residences were made of stone with cedar roofing. The chamber buildings that surrounded the temple were three stories high. The interior walls and ceilings were lined with cedar to cover all the stone (1 Kings 6:1–10). In all the construction details for the temple, the text does not elaborate on architectural style. Perhaps the builders were influenced to some degree by the styles of the major periods.

What are the theological implications related to the form and function of the sacred structures in the biblical material? The first is that God is the ultimate designer of Israel’s architecture. God’s signature work certainly is not the tabernacle or the Solomonic temple, but rather the created realm. The beauty and the complexities of the created world continue to draw attention to God’s beauty and intelligence. As the psalmist declares, the creation, which God designed, is a constant source of praise (Ps. 19).

God’s skill and artistic beauty as a master architect are reflected also in the revelation of his plans for the sacred structures of Israel to the nation’s artisans. The skill that the artisans manifested in the construction process was also a gift from God (Exod. 35:35; 2 Chron. 2:14).

The structures designed by God for construction were primarily for him. This is understandable because the patriarchal and Mosaic periods included long desert pilgrimages and the related tent dwelling. References to homes and houses in the book of Leviticus are not about design and construction but about function. The domestic home must be free of mildew (Lev. 14:34–41) and thus clean according to the standards of the law. The construction of Davidic and Solomonic homes is given attention in Scripture (2 Sam. 5:11; 7:1; 1 Kings 7:1–12).

The tabernacle and the temple were divine residences (Exod. 30:6; 40:34; 2 Sam. 7:5; 1 Kings 8:11). For this reason, the design and function of each structure reflected the glorious worth of God and reminded the nation of its own uncleanness. Beyond the structures of temple and tabernacle, the city of Jerusalem was privileged to be the resting place of the “Name” (i.e., presence) of the Lord (2 Chron. 6:5–6) and to have David as the chosen ruler (2 Chron. 6:34).

The history of Israel reveals that the sustainability of these sacred structures was influenced by physical and spiritual factors. God occupied the structures or met with Israel at these sacred places as long as Israel conformed to the terms of the Mosaic covenant (1 Sam. 4:21; 1 Kings 9:6–9). During the monarchy, kings who departed from Torah would strip the temple to pay tribute to foreign overlords (2 Kings 24:13) or would modify the function of the structure to accommodate the worship of foreign gods (see 2 Kings 23). Although there were periodic times of rebuilding the sacred structures, sustainability was short lived. The ideology of the sacred structures anticipates a future time when their original function will be replaced with the opportunity to live in God’s presence forever.

New Testament

The NT refers only rarely to architects or architecture. Hebrews 11:10 speaks of God as the “architect [technitēs] and builder” of the heavenly Jerusalem. Paul refers to the church as the temple of God. Jesus Christ is the foundation, and Christian leaders are building upon that foundation with either gold, silver, and costly stones or wood, hay, and straw (1 Cor. 3:10–17; cf. 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16).

In terms of physical buildings, the church of the NT was a house church. During the time of Christ the significant architectural structures were the temple and synagogues. Herod the Great was the major builder of the time, whose impressive temple dominated the landscape of the Jerusalem area. Although the synagogue was a central structure during the life of Christ and the early church, function is emphasized over form in the biblical material. The synagogue was a place for prayer, Scripture study, and the administration of justice (Luke 4:16–30; Acts 13:15; 14:1).

The focus of the NT is also on the church’s function instead of its architectural form. The church, however, prospered and grew in the context of a significant Hellenistic architectural period (300 BC to AD 300). In this period the Seleucids were responsible for establishing large Greek cities across western and central Asia. The primary construction material continued to be the mud-brick, which resulted in rapidly decaying buildings. Although cities continued to be laid out in a grid format, a more dynamic, hilly format was being introduced. The homes in these cities often were built with courtyards like ones in Mesopotamia and Egypt. The temples of the Hellenistic period were designed with landscaping and terracing, along with porticoed enclosures and stairways.

The book of Revelation closes the canon with extensive detail about the new city of Jerusalem, which God will design and build (Rev. 21) and which will function to serve his sovereign purposes as creator and redeemer.

Architecture is the technology and the art of design and construction. The technology of architecture includes an understanding of mathematical and engineering principles; the art of architecture focuses attention on interest and beauty in design. The creative imagination of the architect is constantly considering how to artfully manage form and function in the design and construction process.

Architecture and the Bible

The term “architecture” does not occur in most English translations of the Bible. There is, however, evidence of and reference to the architectural activity of God’s people. In addition, Israel and the church were contextualized in significant architectural periods (Egyptian, Assyrian, Greek, and Roman), so the major empires of the biblical period often influenced the design and construction of cities, temples, and structures referenced in the biblical text. Architecture offers biblical studies a way to better understand the historical intentions of the Bible. By means of architectural investigation, the history and the heritage of past civilizations are illuminated. As a result, our reading of the biblical text is enhanced.

When we investigate the biblical text with attention to the technology and art of architecture, two perspectives emerge. First, architecture draws our attention to the background of the biblical text. In certain biblical texts we learn about the design and the construction that took place in Egypt, Assyria, and Palestine during major biblical events. For example, the patriarchal and Mosaic periods occurred during times of expansion and development in the Eighteenth to Twentieth Dynasties of Egypt (i.e., New Kingdom, sixteenth to eleventh centuries BC). For these periods, we gain knowledge about capital relocations along with temple and pyramid constructions. We learn that during the conquest, Israel took over existing Canaanite cities in keeping with the Mosaic policies. The architecture of Palestine enables us to better understand the form and function of these infrastructures.

Second, architecture draws our attention to the theological implications of the form and function of structures designed by God. In keeping with the scope of architecture, we are forced to understand that what God designed for altars, the ark, the tabernacle, and the temples of the past and the future included more than just the functional requirements of a nation’s religious system. The interpreter of the biblical text must consider how the design of these structures elicits response and communicates meaning. These structures are also windows on the social, political, and economic aspects of the Israelite nation.

Old Testament

Cities and fortifications. The biblical rec­ord makes reference to architectural structures, materials, and furnishings. Cities are referenced frequently throughout the OT canon. The city is obviously the context for architectural expression. The cities of the Bible are not described in extensive detail. We learn that Cain was a city builder who named his work after his son Enoch. The architectural feature of cities mentioned most often is the city gates (Gen. 19:1; 23:10, 18; Deut. 17:5; Josh. 2:5; 7:5; 20:4; Judg. 5:8). This was an important place for city life and activity (Gen. 23:1; Prov. 31:31). There was also sinister activity at city gates. Abner, for example, was killed in the city gate (2 Sam. 3:22–30). In addition, executions for covenant violations were carried out at the city gate (Deut. 17:5). There was more than one city gate, as we learn from the postexilic construction activity of Ezra and Nehemiah.

Within the city there was a strong tower. The people of Babel used thoroughly baked bricks instead of stone and tar for mortar in order to build the city and the tower that was designed to reach to the heavens (Gen. 11:3–4). A city tower functioned as a place of refuge for the people within the city limits (Judg. 9:49–51).

Cities were protected by a wall system (Lev. 25:29) that also provided space for housing (Josh. 2:15). The conquest of Jericho recounts the familiar defeat of that city by the very unconventional destruction of its walls (Josh. 6:20). A city square is another feature of the city architecture (Judg. 19:15–17) that served the public needs of the community.

The biblical descriptions of Jerusalem offer a measure of insight into its architecture. During the rebuilding process in the postexilic period, Nehemiah comments on both the construction and the building materials (Neh. 2:8; 13:31; cf. Ezra 6:4) and the spacious nature of the city (Neh. 7:4). From another perspective, the psalmist comments, “Jerusalem is built like a city that is closely compacted together” (Ps. 122:3).

Beyond these textual details we learn through the writings of the prophets that cities are the subject of God’s wrath for covenant violation (Jer. 6:6; Hos. 11:6; Mic. 5:11). Despite this, the nation of Israel is not left without the hope of restoration. The prophets also anticipated the return of the people along with the restoration of the city infrastructure (Amos 9:14; Mal. 1:4).

The temple and sacred structures. The other architectural features referenced by the writers of Scripture include altars, the tabernacle, the tent of meeting, and the temple. The tent and the tabernacle were also outfitted with unique furniture items described in detail and expertly crafted. The construction projects of Solomon are detailed in 1 Kings 5–7. Solomon, like David, pursued his architectural ambitions. The book of Ezekiel gives extensive architectural detail for the construction of a future temple in which God will reign and rule (Ezek. 40–48).

The temple and royal residences were made of stone with cedar roofing. The chamber buildings that surrounded the temple were three stories high. The interior walls and ceilings were lined with cedar to cover all the stone (1 Kings 6:1–10). In all the construction details for the temple, the text does not elaborate on architectural style. Perhaps the builders were influenced to some degree by the styles of the major periods.

What are the theological implications related to the form and function of the sacred structures in the biblical material? The first is that God is the ultimate designer of Israel’s architecture. God’s signature work certainly is not the tabernacle or the Solomonic temple, but rather the created realm. The beauty and the complexities of the created world continue to draw attention to God’s beauty and intelligence. As the psalmist declares, the creation, which God designed, is a constant source of praise (Ps. 19).

God’s skill and artistic beauty as a master architect are reflected also in the revelation of his plans for the sacred structures of Israel to the nation’s artisans. The skill that the artisans manifested in the construction process was also a gift from God (Exod. 35:35; 2 Chron. 2:14).

The structures designed by God for construction were primarily for him. This is understandable because the patriarchal and Mosaic periods included long desert pilgrimages and the related tent dwelling. References to homes and houses in the book of Leviticus are not about design and construction but about function. The domestic home must be free of mildew (Lev. 14:34–41) and thus clean according to the standards of the law. The construction of Davidic and Solomonic homes is given attention in Scripture (2 Sam. 5:11; 7:1; 1 Kings 7:1–12).

The tabernacle and the temple were divine residences (Exod. 30:6; 40:34; 2 Sam. 7:5; 1 Kings 8:11). For this reason, the design and function of each structure reflected the glorious worth of God and reminded the nation of its own uncleanness. Beyond the structures of temple and tabernacle, the city of Jerusalem was privileged to be the resting place of the “Name” (i.e., presence) of the Lord (2 Chron. 6:5–6) and to have David as the chosen ruler (2 Chron. 6:34).

The history of Israel reveals that the sustainability of these sacred structures was influenced by physical and spiritual factors. God occupied the structures or met with Israel at these sacred places as long as Israel conformed to the terms of the Mosaic covenant (1 Sam. 4:21; 1 Kings 9:6–9). During the monarchy, kings who departed from Torah would strip the temple to pay tribute to foreign overlords (2 Kings 24:13) or would modify the function of the structure to accommodate the worship of foreign gods (see 2 Kings 23). Although there were periodic times of rebuilding the sacred structures, sustainability was short lived. The ideology of the sacred structures anticipates a future time when their original function will be replaced with the opportunity to live in God’s presence forever.

New Testament

The NT refers only rarely to architects or architecture. Hebrews 11:10 speaks of God as the “architect [technitēs] and builder” of the heavenly Jerusalem. Paul refers to the church as the temple of God. Jesus Christ is the foundation, and Christian leaders are building upon that foundation with either gold, silver, and costly stones or wood, hay, and straw (1 Cor. 3:10–17; cf. 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16).

In terms of physical buildings, the church of the NT was a house church. During the time of Christ the significant architectural structures were the temple and synagogues. Herod the Great was the major builder of the time, whose impressive temple dominated the landscape of the Jerusalem area. Although the synagogue was a central structure during the life of Christ and the early church, function is emphasized over form in the biblical material. The synagogue was a place for prayer, Scripture study, and the administration of justice (Luke 4:16–30; Acts 13:15; 14:1).

The focus of the NT is also on the church’s function instead of its architectural form. The church, however, prospered and grew in the context of a significant Hellenistic architectural period (300 BC to AD 300). In this period the Seleucids were responsible for establishing large Greek cities across western and central Asia. The primary construction material continued to be the mud-brick, which resulted in rapidly decaying buildings. Although cities continued to be laid out in a grid format, a more dynamic, hilly format was being introduced. The homes in these cities often were built with courtyards like ones in Mesopotamia and Egypt. The temples of the Hellenistic period were designed with landscaping and terracing, along with porticoed enclosures and stairways.

The book of Revelation closes the canon with extensive detail about the new city of Jerusalem, which God will design and build (Rev. 21) and which will function to serve his sovereign purposes as creator and redeemer.

A rooster marks the passage of time in the story of Peter’s denial of Jesus in all four Gospels (Matt. 26:34, 74–75; Mark 14:30, 72; Luke 22:34, 60, 61; John 13:38; 18:27). In the story, Jesus predicts that Peter will deny him three times before the rooster crows. The event takes place in the Sanhedrin courtyard in the presence of the high priest’s servants (the high priest was one of the people trying Jesus). In Mark 13:35 Jesus warns that the coming apocalypse will take people by surprise if they are not watching during the different times of night, including “when the rooster crows.”

The word “root” occurs in a literal sense in Job 30:4, but ordinarily it is used in a figurative sense. Its most prevalent connotation refers to the foundation or core of a matter or one’s life (Job 28:9; Prov. 12:3, 12; Isa. 14:30). It also, by analogy, signifies that which gives life to the plant (Matt. 13:6; Rom. 11:17). When pictured near water, roots symbolize prosperity (Job 29:19; Ezek. 31:7), even a blessing of the Lord (Job 8:17; Jer. 17:8).

The term sometimes indicates the lowest part or depth (Job 36:30). It can also carry the idea of origin, as in that of bitterness or evil (Deut. 29:18; 1 Tim. 6:10; Heb. 12:15), or the cause of a matter (Job 19:28).

Frequently, the word is used to describe something established, as in a kingdom (Ps. 80:9, 15; Isa. 27:6; 37:31; 40:24; Jer. 12:2). It emphasizes positively that which is secure (Prov. 12:3, 12) or negatively that which is uprooted or destroyed (1 Kings 14:15).

Finally, the word may refer to the offspring of a family (Judg. 5:14; Ps. 80:15), ultimately pointing to the coming Messiah (Isa. 11:1, 10; 53:2; Rev. 5:5; 22:16) as the heir through whom the dynasty is completed.

The blossoms of seed-bearing plants that contain the plant’s reproductive organs. Used generally, “flowers” refers to the colorful array of blossoms that grew mostly in the open fields of the Holy Land. Numerous kinds of wild flowers could be found in the plains and mountains of Palestine. When winter rains were followed by the moderate temperatures of spring, renewal abounded (Song 2:11–12). Early spring blossoms presented an array of vibrant color and form. As early as January, cyclamen poured forth pink, white, and lilac blossoms, followed by various shades of red and pink of the crown anemones, poppies, and mountain tulips. The flowers of the diverse tuberous plants of the lily family also added to the colorful mosaic. Summer brought fields of chamomile and chrysanthemums, with their yellow and white daisylike flowers. The blossoms from plants such as mints, mustards, and other native herbaceous plants, along with those of flowering trees, shrubs, and field flowers, provided ample nectar for bees in the land of milk and honey (Num. 13:27). Healing or soothing ointments and various perfumes were produced from the essential oils extracted from the crushing of blossoms from a variety of flowers.

Flower Imagery

Traditionally, the language of flowers functions to illustrate some prominent themes, such as love and beauty. Flower imagery in descriptions of the tabernacle, of Solomon’s temple, and in the Song of Solomon develops the themes of beauty, purity, sweetness, and love (Song 2:1–5; 5:13; Isa. 28:4). The Song of Solomon is set in a garden scene where the sensuous quality of flowers—their colors, shapes, and scents, their delicate touch—are analogous to the captivating sexuality of physical love. The spring setting assures that the flowers are at their pinnacle of brilliance and the air is filled with the fragrance of vine blossoms (Song 2:12–13).

Used metaphorically, flowers can also refer to transience, pride, restoration, and the glory of the holy and eternal. Such references are found in both Testaments. The short life of flowers is representative of the brevity and fragility of human life on earth (Job 14:2; Ps. 103:15; Isa. 40:6–8; 1 Pet. 1:24). After a brief moment of splendor, decline and decay are close behind. Such is the metaphor used in psalms, by the prophets, and in the NT for the life of a person who flourishes like the flower, is like the grass one day, but is gone the next day.

As surely as flower imagery points out our human mortality, it also serves to illustrate the judgment of the proud or ungodly, as when Isaiah prophesies the speedy downfall of the kingdom of Israel like flowers being trampled under-foot (Isa. 28:1–3), turned to dust (5:24), or cut off with pruning knives (18:5). Nahum sees God’s power to rebuke his enemies in his ability to dry up seas and rivers and to make the many flowers of Carmel and Lebanon wilt (Nah. 1:4). James applies the flower imagery to describe the sudden departure of the rich person, passing away as quickly as the flowers of the field, whose beauty perishes under the burning heat of the sun (James 1:10–11).

The usual contexts of this flower imagery are judgment on the proud and the wicked, whose deeds will be short-lived. The insignificant and contemptible deeds of the wicked are contrasted with God’s power; our human transience and frailty with God’s permanence (Ps. 103:15); and our human weakness with the eternal word of God (Isa. 40:6, 8; 1 Pet. 1:24–25).

The flower can also represent a blessing. The righteous are compared to the flowering or flourishing of a plant (Isa. 5:24; 18:5; 28:1–4), since the flowering of a plant represents the peak of its life process, its most glorious moment. This beautifully pictures the restoration themes of the prophets as they utilize flower imagery. Isaiah’s words “The desert and the parched land will be glad; the wilderness will rejoice and blossom. Like the crocus, it will burst into bloom; it will rejoice greatly and shout for joy” (Isa. 35:1–2; cf. 27:6) are one example of God’s restorative ability to turn a wasteland into a garden. Hosea illustrates this theme: “I will be like the dew to Israel; he will blossom like a lily. Like a cedar of Lebanon he will send down his roots” (Hos. 14:5). The psalmists also sing of the righteous, not the wicked, flourishing like grass or the flower (Pss. 72:7, 16; 92:12–14). Proverbs too reminds us that the righteous will “flourish,” or break forth and sprout like foliage (Prov. 14:11).

Flowers Named in the Bible

The Bible often identifies flowering plants by a more generic name rather than mentioning specific flowers. Sometimes context can help in determining more specific species. According to 1 Kings 7:19–20, 26, lily blossoms, along with pomegranates, adorned the top of the bronze columns that stood before King Solomon’s temple. In a musical aspect, three psalms are identified as those to be sung to the tune “Lilies” (Pss. 45; 69; 80).

The most frequently mentioned specific flowers are traditionally translated “lily” and “rose” (though these are probably not accurate renderings since these flowers are not native to the region and so would have been unfamiliar to most readers). Many commentators believe that the phrase “lilies of the field” referred to the showy, attractive springtime flowers that grow profusely in the plains, pastures, and hills of the Carmel and Sharon regions. These flowers can include ranunculus, anemone, cyclamen, tulip, hyacinth, narcissus, crocus, iris, and orchid. The tulip, asphodel, star-of-Bethlehem, hyacinth, and related narcissus, daffodil, crocus, and iris inhabit the rocky ground and dry places of the hill country. The “lily of the valleys” of Song 2:1–2 is probably the blue hyacinth.

Consider Jesus’ words “Observe how the lilies of the field grow; they do not toil nor do they spin, yet I say to you that not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these” (Matt. 6:28–29 NASB). Although these flowers may not be true lilies but rather one of the numerous showy spring flowers such as the crown anemone, Jesus proclaims that the beauty of a single flower in a meadow was more striking than all the riches of Solomon, and that the flower did not concern itself with working and getting riches to be clothed. Jesus’ comments about flowers demonstrate that their beauty was appreciated in Israel.

The flowers listed below are specifically named in various Bible versions.

Almond blossoms. The almond tree is among the first of flowering trees to bloom in the spring. Almond blossoms were part of the almond-tree design on the seven-branched lampstands of the tabernacle (Exod. 25:33–34; 37:19–20). In Eccles. 12:5, almond tree blossoms are likely an allegorical reference to an elderly person’s hair turning white like the almond tree.

Camphire flower. In Song 1:14; 4:13, the KJV refers to camphire, while the NIV and most modern versions have “henna.” The camphire is a small plant or shrub that bears highly scented, cream-colored flowers that hang in clusters and were used for orange dye.

Caperberry flower. The caperberry was a common prickly shrub with large, white flowers that produced small, edible berries. The berries had a reputation for exciting sexual desire, so the caperberry is used in Eccles. 12:5 to allude to the waning sexual potency that comes with age (NIV: “desire is no longer stirred”).

Cockle flower. The KJV of Job 31:40 refers to a “cockle” (NIV: “stinkweed”), a plant whose name is spelled like the Hebrew word for “stink.” This noxious weed with purplish red flowers grew abundantly in Palestinian grain fields.

Crocus. A plant with a long yellow floral tube tinged with purple specks or stripes. The abundant blossoms of the crocus symbolize beauty and splendor (Isa. 35:1).

Fitch. Named in the KJV at Isa. 28:25, 27 (NIV: “caraway”; NRSV: “dill”) and Ezek. 4:9 (NIV: “spelt”). The flower referred to is probably the nutmeg flower, which is a member of the buttercup family; it grew wild in most Mediterranean lands. The plant is about two feet high, with bright blue flowers. The pods of the plant were used like pepper.

Lily. A symbol of fruitfulness, purity, and resurrection, this plant grows from a bulb to a height of three feet, with large white flowers. The term “lily” covers a wide range of flowers. The lily mentioned in Song 5:13 refers to a rare variety of lily that had a bloom similar to a glowing flame. The “lily of the valleys” (Song 2:1) is known as the Easter lily. The lily mentioned in Hos. 14:5 is more like an iris. The water lily or lotus was a favorite flower in Egypt and was used to decorate Solomon’s temple (1 Kings 7:19, 22, 26; 2 Chron. 4:5). The “lilies of the field” (Matt. 6:28) probably were numerous kinds of colorful spring flowers such as the crown anemone (see NIV: “flowers of the field”).

Mint. This aromatic plant, with hairy leaves, has dense white or pink flowers. It is listed with other spices and herbs as something that the Pharisees tithe (Matt. 23:23; Luke 11:42).

Myrtle branch. This bush has fragrant evergreen leaves. Its scented white flowers were used for perfumes. The bush grew to considerable height (Zech. 1:8, 10) and is listed among the trees used to build shelters during the Feast of Tabernacles (Neh. 8:15; see also Isa. 41:19; 55:13).

Pomegranate blossom. The blossom of the pomegranate tree is large and orange-red in color. The fruit of the tree was a symbol of fertile and productive land (Num. 13:23; Deut. 8:8; cf. Hag. 2:19) and was used to produce spiced wine (Song 8:2). Pomegranates were part of the decoration that adorned Aaron’s garments (Exod. 28:33–34) and the temple of Solomon (1 Kings 7:18–20).

Rose. The Hebrew word translated as “rose” in Song 2:1 is translated as “crocus” in Isa. 35:1. Crocus was probably the family name of this flower.

Saffron. This is a species of crocus. Petals of the saffron were used to perfume banquet halls (cf. Song 4:14).

The blossoms of seed-bearing plants that contain the plant’s reproductive organs. Used generally, “flowers” refers to the colorful array of blossoms that grew mostly in the open fields of the Holy Land. Numerous kinds of wild flowers could be found in the plains and mountains of Palestine. When winter rains were followed by the moderate temperatures of spring, renewal abounded (Song 2:11–12). Early spring blossoms presented an array of vibrant color and form. As early as January, cyclamen poured forth pink, white, and lilac blossoms, followed by various shades of red and pink of the crown anemones, poppies, and mountain tulips. The flowers of the diverse tuberous plants of the lily family also added to the colorful mosaic. Summer brought fields of chamomile and chrysanthemums, with their yellow and white daisylike flowers. The blossoms from plants such as mints, mustards, and other native herbaceous plants, along with those of flowering trees, shrubs, and field flowers, provided ample nectar for bees in the land of milk and honey (Num. 13:27). Healing or soothing ointments and various perfumes were produced from the essential oils extracted from the crushing of blossoms from a variety of flowers.

Flower Imagery

Traditionally, the language of flowers functions to illustrate some prominent themes, such as love and beauty. Flower imagery in descriptions of the tabernacle, of Solomon’s temple, and in the Song of Solomon develops the themes of beauty, purity, sweetness, and love (Song 2:1–5; 5:13; Isa. 28:4). The Song of Solomon is set in a garden scene where the sensuous quality of flowers—their colors, shapes, and scents, their delicate touch—are analogous to the captivating sexuality of physical love. The spring setting assures that the flowers are at their pinnacle of brilliance and the air is filled with the fragrance of vine blossoms (Song 2:12–13).

Used metaphorically, flowers can also refer to transience, pride, restoration, and the glory of the holy and eternal. Such references are found in both Testaments. The short life of flowers is representative of the brevity and fragility of human life on earth (Job 14:2; Ps. 103:15; Isa. 40:6–8; 1 Pet. 1:24). After a brief moment of splendor, decline and decay are close behind. Such is the metaphor used in psalms, by the prophets, and in the NT for the life of a person who flourishes like the flower, is like the grass one day, but is gone the next day.

As surely as flower imagery points out our human mortality, it also serves to illustrate the judgment of the proud or ungodly, as when Isaiah prophesies the speedy downfall of the kingdom of Israel like flowers being trampled under-foot (Isa. 28:1–3), turned to dust (5:24), or cut off with pruning knives (18:5). Nahum sees God’s power to rebuke his enemies in his ability to dry up seas and rivers and to make the many flowers of Carmel and Lebanon wilt (Nah. 1:4). James applies the flower imagery to describe the sudden departure of the rich person, passing away as quickly as the flowers of the field, whose beauty perishes under the burning heat of the sun (James 1:10–11).

The usual contexts of this flower imagery are judgment on the proud and the wicked, whose deeds will be short-lived. The insignificant and contemptible deeds of the wicked are contrasted with God’s power; our human transience and frailty with God’s permanence (Ps. 103:15); and our human weakness with the eternal word of God (Isa. 40:6, 8; 1 Pet. 1:24–25).

The flower can also represent a blessing. The righteous are compared to the flowering or flourishing of a plant (Isa. 5:24; 18:5; 28:1–4), since the flowering of a plant represents the peak of its life process, its most glorious moment. This beautifully pictures the restoration themes of the prophets as they utilize flower imagery. Isaiah’s words “The desert and the parched land will be glad; the wilderness will rejoice and blossom. Like the crocus, it will burst into bloom; it will rejoice greatly and shout for joy” (Isa. 35:1–2; cf. 27:6) are one example of God’s restorative ability to turn a wasteland into a garden. Hosea illustrates this theme: “I will be like the dew to Israel; he will blossom like a lily. Like a cedar of Lebanon he will send down his roots” (Hos. 14:5). The psalmists also sing of the righteous, not the wicked, flourishing like grass or the flower (Pss. 72:7, 16; 92:12–14). Proverbs too reminds us that the righteous will “flourish,” or break forth and sprout like foliage (Prov. 14:11).

Flowers Named in the Bible

The Bible often identifies flowering plants by a more generic name rather than mentioning specific flowers. Sometimes context can help in determining more specific species. According to 1 Kings 7:19–20, 26, lily blossoms, along with pomegranates, adorned the top of the bronze columns that stood before King Solomon’s temple. In a musical aspect, three psalms are identified as those to be sung to the tune “Lilies” (Pss. 45; 69; 80).

The most frequently mentioned specific flowers are traditionally translated “lily” and “rose” (though these are probably not accurate renderings since these flowers are not native to the region and so would have been unfamiliar to most readers). Many commentators believe that the phrase “lilies of the field” referred to the showy, attractive springtime flowers that grow profusely in the plains, pastures, and hills of the Carmel and Sharon regions. These flowers can include ranunculus, anemone, cyclamen, tulip, hyacinth, narcissus, crocus, iris, and orchid. The tulip, asphodel, star-of-Bethlehem, hyacinth, and related narcissus, daffodil, crocus, and iris inhabit the rocky ground and dry places of the hill country. The “lily of the valleys” of Song 2:1–2 is probably the blue hyacinth.

Consider Jesus’ words “Observe how the lilies of the field grow; they do not toil nor do they spin, yet I say to you that not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these” (Matt. 6:28–29 NASB). Although these flowers may not be true lilies but rather one of the numerous showy spring flowers such as the crown anemone, Jesus proclaims that the beauty of a single flower in a meadow was more striking than all the riches of Solomon, and that the flower did not concern itself with working and getting riches to be clothed. Jesus’ comments about flowers demonstrate that their beauty was appreciated in Israel.

The flowers listed below are specifically named in various Bible versions.

Almond blossoms. The almond tree is among the first of flowering trees to bloom in the spring. Almond blossoms were part of the almond-tree design on the seven-branched lampstands of the tabernacle (Exod. 25:33–34; 37:19–20). In Eccles. 12:5, almond tree blossoms are likely an allegorical reference to an elderly person’s hair turning white like the almond tree.

Camphire flower. In Song 1:14; 4:13, the KJV refers to camphire, while the NIV and most modern versions have “henna.” The camphire is a small plant or shrub that bears highly scented, cream-colored flowers that hang in clusters and were used for orange dye.

Caperberry flower. The caperberry was a common prickly shrub with large, white flowers that produced small, edible berries. The berries had a reputation for exciting sexual desire, so the caperberry is used in Eccles. 12:5 to allude to the waning sexual potency that comes with age (NIV: “desire is no longer stirred”).

Cockle flower. The KJV of Job 31:40 refers to a “cockle” (NIV: “stinkweed”), a plant whose name is spelled like the Hebrew word for “stink.” This noxious weed with purplish red flowers grew abundantly in Palestinian grain fields.

Crocus. A plant with a long yellow floral tube tinged with purple specks or stripes. The abundant blossoms of the crocus symbolize beauty and splendor (Isa. 35:1).

Fitch. Named in the KJV at Isa. 28:25, 27 (NIV: “caraway”; NRSV: “dill”) and Ezek. 4:9 (NIV: “spelt”). The flower referred to is probably the nutmeg flower, which is a member of the buttercup family; it grew wild in most Mediterranean lands. The plant is about two feet high, with bright blue flowers. The pods of the plant were used like pepper.

Lily. A symbol of fruitfulness, purity, and resurrection, this plant grows from a bulb to a height of three feet, with large white flowers. The term “lily” covers a wide range of flowers. The lily mentioned in Song 5:13 refers to a rare variety of lily that had a bloom similar to a glowing flame. The “lily of the valleys” (Song 2:1) is known as the Easter lily. The lily mentioned in Hos. 14:5 is more like an iris. The water lily or lotus was a favorite flower in Egypt and was used to decorate Solomon’s temple (1 Kings 7:19, 22, 26; 2 Chron. 4:5). The “lilies of the field” (Matt. 6:28) probably were numerous kinds of colorful spring flowers such as the crown anemone (see NIV: “flowers of the field”).

Mint. This aromatic plant, with hairy leaves, has dense white or pink flowers. It is listed with other spices and herbs as something that the Pharisees tithe (Matt. 23:23; Luke 11:42).

Myrtle branch. This bush has fragrant evergreen leaves. Its scented white flowers were used for perfumes. The bush grew to considerable height (Zech. 1:8, 10) and is listed among the trees used to build shelters during the Feast of Tabernacles (Neh. 8:15; see also Isa. 41:19; 55:13).

Pomegranate blossom. The blossom of the pomegranate tree is large and orange-red in color. The fruit of the tree was a symbol of fertile and productive land (Num. 13:23; Deut. 8:8; cf. Hag. 2:19) and was used to produce spiced wine (Song 8:2). Pomegranates were part of the decoration that adorned Aaron’s garments (Exod. 28:33–34) and the temple of Solomon (1 Kings 7:18–20).

Rose. The Hebrew word translated as “rose” in Song 2:1 is translated as “crocus” in Isa. 35:1. Crocus was probably the family name of this flower.

Saffron. This is a species of crocus. Petals of the saffron were used to perfume banquet halls (cf. Song 4:14).

A type of ornamental metalwork, usually made by twisting fine wire into delicate shapes, often featuring floral or other decorative motifs. Gold filigree work was used for the settings of precious stones on the high priest’s garments (Exod. 28:11–20).

The seventh of Benjamin’s ten sons (Gen. 46:21). The name does not appear in the other genealogies of Benjamin (Num. 26:38–41; 1 Chron. 7:6–12), which leads some to suggest that “Ehi” and “Rosh” in Gen. 46:21 resulted from a scribe miscopying the name “Ahiram.”

In Isa. 3:18 the KJV translates the Hebrew term saharon (“moon, crescent”) as “round tire,” which, as the KJV translation of the same term in Judg. 8:21, 26 recognizes, served as an ornament worn by both people and camels. The NET translates the term as “crescent-shaped ornament” (NIV: “crescent necklaces”; NRSV: “crescent”).

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.

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.

A king’s residence (1 Sam. 27:5; Josh. 8:1; 10:2). Being a walled city, it was the last bastion of defense in wartime (2 Sam. 12:26). David took the Jebusite royal city, the citadel of Zion (Jerusalem), and made it Israel’s royal city (2 Sam. 5:7–9).

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.

A reddish hue. The term is used to describe skin or perhaps hair (1 Sam. 16:12; 17:42 NASB, NET, NRSV, KJV; NIV: “glowing with health”; Song 5:10; Lam. 4:7; see also Gen. 25:25). When used of skin, it indicates health.

An herb (Ruta graveolens) subject to tithe and mentioned only in Luke 11:42 (Gk. pēganon), rue was used for flavoring and for its medicinal value.

One of the two sons of Simon of Cyrene, who was conscripted to carry Jesus’ cross (Mark 15:21). A man named “Rufus” is sent greetings by Paul in Rom. 16:13, and he may be the same person. The equation of the two is made more likely if Mark’s Gospel was written for a Roman audience.

A transliteration of the Hebrew phrase “not pitied,” or “not loved” (lo’ rukhamah), it occurs in Hos. 1:6 as the God-given name of Gomer and Hosea’s second child, a daughter. Lo-Ruhamah’s name indicates the perilous status of the northern kingdom before God in the time leading up to the exile. This pity carries the connotation of God’s motherly compassion for Israel, as other instances of the root word for this name are translated “compassion” and “womb.” Significantly, in Hos. 2:23 God changes her name from “Not Loved” to “Loved,” showing his endangered but enduring compassion on Israel. See also Lo-Ammi.

A transliteration of the Greek word synagōgē, meaning “gathering, assembly, meeting.” In English, the word “synagogue” refers either to a Jewish congregation or to the place where that congregation meets. Synagogues of the biblical era functioned as both religious and civic centers for the Jewish community.

Origins

The origin of synagogues is uncertain. The earliest archaeological evidence is from Egypt in the third century BC, consisting of inscriptions and a papyrus letter. The oldest architectural find is from the island of Delos in the Aegean Sea, although whether this was constructed as a synagogue or redesigned into one is unknown, as is whether it was Jewish or Samaritan. The oldest structures yet found in Israel consist of two rooms at Qumran and the synagogue at Gamla, which date from the late first century BC. In Capernaum, the basalt synagogue was built by a Gentile centurion for the community in the first century AD (Luke 7:1–5).

By that time, synagogues were well attested in Israel, elsewhere in the Roman Empire, and in Egypt (Matt. 4:23; Luke 4:44; Acts 9:2; 17:10, 16–17; 18:8, 19). Synagogues were found wherever there were communities of Jews, in cities and rural areas alike. Especially in Diaspora settings or remote locations, they were the heart of Jewish life. Several hypotheses have been suggested to account for their apparently sudden appearance.

Some believe that synagogues were developed during the Babylonian captivity as the response of the exile community to the destruction of their temple and sacrificial system. Despite these enormous losses, the Jews still had the Torah, and from that point forward worship and prayer based on the reading and studying of the Scriptures, which could be done locally, began to gain ascendancy. Critics of this idea, however, point out that while it makes sense, there is no direct evidence to support it.

Others think that the spread of Hellenism in the second century BC precipitated a crisis of identity among Jews. For example, 1 Maccabees reports with distress that some Jews had abandoned the covenant and teamed with the Hellenists, even going so far as to build a Greek-style gymnasium in Jerusalem (1:11–15). Thus, the thought is that synagogues were a form of resistance to the overwhelming and perversely appealing cultural changes of the day.

More recently, it has been suggested that synagogues were the gradual successors to functions that had previously taken place at city gates. First-century synagogues served a wide range of functions for the community. Throughout Israel’s prior history, however, these same activities—assembly, legal, social, educational, and religious—had taken place at the city gate (Deut. 12:15; 2 Sam. 15:2; 2 Kings 23:8; Neh. 8:1–8). The Gamla synagogue sits against the east city wall next to a probable gate, and its location could be evidence of the slow development of the synagogue as city gates changed from multipurpose facilities to portals of ingress and egress.

First-Century Synagogues

First-century synagogues served as integrated centers supporting Jewish life. Regular communal reading and exposition of Scripture, including teaching and discussion of the law and transmission of its complex associated traditions (Luke 4:16; Acts 13:14–15), occurred there. Although formal liturgical rites evolved after the destruction of the temple in AD 70, synagogues were places of prayer in the first century (Matt. 6:5). Synagogues also served as courtrooms and places where crimes were punished (Acts 22:19), as well as locations for common meals and festivals (see Acts 6:2).

Synagogues were administered by local community leaders, including a president and a board (Acts 13:15). Synagogue leaders named in the NT include Jairus (Mark 5:22; Luke 8:41), Crispus (Acts 18:8), and Sosthenes (Acts 18:17). The role of the leader was to preside over services, to rule as the judge in court cases, to represent the community, and often to act as a patron. The board served in an advisory role and assisted with teaching. A scribe maintained community records and taught.

Congregations included Pharisees, who advocated strict adherence to the law, although they were chided by Jesus for their false piety (Luke 11:42–44). Women participated in the synagogue along with the men, and in some cases they were financial donors (cf. Luke 8:3). God-fearing Gentiles were welcomed (Acts 17:17). In Jerusalem, synagogues included both Hebrews and Jews from the Diaspora (Acts 6:1, 9).

A synagogue could be a designated room in a house or a discrete building. Most of the better archaeological evidence is later than the first century and reveals more clearly religious intentionality in design than may have been characteristic earlier. This evidence includes the door facing Jerusalem, artistic temple motifs, a niche for the Torah scrolls, and perimeter bench seating around an open central hall.

The Synagogue in the Bible

Since synagogues were institutions with a documented history no earlier than the third century BC, they are not mentioned in the OT. The Greek word from which the English one is derived does appear frequently in the LXX, but always with a general reference to a gathering, assembly, or meeting.

Rabbinic history (but not Scripture) makes reference to the “Great Synagogue,” meaning a group of men who transmitted traditions from the prophets to the earliest named rabbinic teachers. It is loosely based on Neh. 8–10, which describes the prayers and actions of the Jewish leaders who had returned from exile.

Synagogues frequently were locations of the teaching and healing ministry of Jesus. He began preaching the kingdom of God, teaching, and performing healing miracles in Galilean synagogues (Matt. 4:23; 9:35; 12:9; 13:54; Mark 1:21–29, 39; 3:1; 6:2; Luke 4:15–38, 44; 6:6–11; 13:10–17; John 6:59; 18:20). Later, the apostle Paul customarily initiated his mission work in the local synagogue at each of his destinations (Acts 9:19–20; 13:5, 14–15; 14:1; 17:1, 10, 17; 18:1–8; 19:8).

The last (and, from a twenty-first-century perspective, most controversial) use of the word “synagogue” in Scripture is the difficult phrase “synagogue of Satan” (Rev. 2:9; 3:9), which must be read in its context. This was written in response to the significant persecution in Asia Minor of the churches at Smyrna and Philadelphia by Jews who were in collusion with the Roman authorities. They were falsely accusing Jewish and Gentile Christian believers, creating unspeakable suffering for them. This phrase, intended to encourage Christian perseverance, implies that the churches in view represented true Israel, while their accusers were false Jews. Similar language was used by the covenant-keeping community in Qumran when, in the DSS, it referred to apostate Jews as a “congregation of Belial” and an “assembly of hypocrites” (1QHa 10:22; 15:34).

The hometown of Zebidah, mother of Jehoiakim (2 Kings 23:36). The name means “elevated place.” A mention by Josephus places it in Galilee, but the exact location is unknown; it is possibly Arumah near Shechem (Judg. 9:41) or Khirbet Rumeh near Nazareth.

Although athletic games probably came to Israel only with the Greeks and Romans, running was a natural part of biblical life: carrying messages (2 Sam. 18:19–32; Jer. 51:31), fleeing predators (Amos 5:19), pursuing enemies (2 Sam. 2:18–23). Running might also be viewed as undignified behavior, since in a Middle Eastern household only children and servants commonly ran about. It has been suggested that in the parable of the prodigal son, the father’s running to greet the prodigal son is a shocking display of unbridled joy (Luke 15:20).

Troops running before an official riding in a chariot, perhaps as heralds and bodyguards and to clear the way. They were used by Absalom and Adonijah (2 Sam. 15:1; 1 Kings 1:5) and apparently by Joseph (Gen. 41:43).

Although athletic games probably came to Israel only with the Greeks and Romans, running was a natural part of biblical life: carrying messages (2 Sam. 18:19–32; Jer. 51:31), fleeing predators (Amos 5:19), pursuing enemies (2 Sam. 2:18–23). Running might also be viewed as undignified behavior, since in a Middle Eastern household only children and servants commonly ran about. It has been suggested that in the parable of the prodigal son, the father’s running to greet the prodigal son is a shocking display of unbridled joy (Luke 15:20).

A sore that oozes or emits pus, unacceptable for priests (Lev. 21:20) and the sacrificial animal (Lev. 22:22). This followed both the requirement that priests and sacrificial animals bear no physical blemish and the general taboo against bodily effluences such as nocturnal emissions (Deut. 23:10).

The corrosion of metal. It is used metaphorically in the Bible to illustrate the transitory nature of earthly treasures. Jesus warns against storing up treasure on earth, where moth and rust destroy (Matt. 6:19 ESV, NRSV, NASB). Ezekiel uses rust as an image of the lasting blight of sin, comparing the people’s wickedness to the corrosion encrusting a pot that not even fire can remove (Ezek. 24:6, 12). James combines these ideas as he warns the rich that the corrosion of their gold and silver will testify against them, eating their flesh like fire (James 5:3). Because James is building on these metaphors, the fact that gold and silver do not actually rust should not distract from his message: the rust that symbolizes the destruction of earthly goods threatens to destroy those who rely on them.

Ruth was a Moabite woman who, during the turbulent period of the judges, married into an Israelite family that had immigrated to Moab, east of the Dead Sea, because of a famine in Israel. At the beginning of her story, her husband, father-in-law, and brother-in-law had died. Thus, she and her mother-in-law, Naomi, returned to Israel, specifically Bethlehem.

On the way back, Naomi informed her daughters-in-law, Ruth and Orpah, that it would be difficult for her to secure husbands for them, and she urged them to return home. Orpah tearfully returned to Moab, but Ruth was determined to go with her mother-in-law and make her family, country, and God hers as well (Ruth 1:16–18).

Upon their return, Ruth had to glean the fields in order to feed herself and Naomi (cf. Lev. 19:9–10; 23:22). A wealthy landowner, Boaz, took pity on Ruth and made sure that she got plenty to eat.

Naomi urged Ruth to reveal her feelings for Boaz by going up to the threshing floor where he was sleeping after work and lying down beside him. Ruth did this to indicate to Boaz that she wanted to marry him. He complimented her by calling her a “woman of noble character” (Ruth 3:11 [cf. Prov. 31:10–31]). Boaz was a relative of Naomi, and the law called for a near relative to marry a widow and produce an heir for the family (Deut. 25:5–10; see also Gen. 38). Complications arose, however, because a nearer kinsman existed who had to be given first chance to marry Ruth. This unnamed kinsman declined Boaz’s offer to recognize his precedence, opening the way for Boaz to marry Ruth.

The union produced offspring, a baby boy, Obed. Obed was the grandfather of David. Thus, the NT mentions Ruth as an ancestor of Jesus Christ (Matt. 1:5).

In Exod. 9:32; Isa. 28:25 some English versions translate the Hebrew word kussemet as “rye” (KJV: “rie”; NIV, NRSV, NASB: “spelt”; ESV: “emmer”). In Ezek. 4:9, where the KJV translates the word as “fitch,” this grain is used to make bread.