Taanach has been confidently identified as Tell Ta’annek, located in the Jezreel Valley, five miles southeast of Megiddo. The mound is imposing, covering eleven acres and rising well over one hundred feet above the valley floor.

The site was explored by Ernst Sellin between 1902 and 1904 and by Paul Lapp in 1963, 1966, and 1968. The second expedition located remains from the Early Bronze Age II–III (3000–2200 BC). The site continued to be occupied through the OT period. It was reused by Arab forces in the eleventh and twelfth centuries AD.

Although no large-scale architectural structures were found there, it had many fortresses and cisterns. Notable among the ruins is a cache of thirteen Akkadian tablets dated to the fifteenth century BC. They were letters and lists of administrative names.

Taanach is mentioned for the first time in an inscription at Karnak of Pharaoh Thutmose III, who included it among cities conquered on his first campaign into Asia in 1468 BC. It was also mentioned as defeated by Shishak I in 918 BC.

The king of Taanach was one of many defeated by Joshua, though the city itself was not said to have been taken (Josh. 12:21). While at first associated with Asher and Issachar, Josh. 17:11 and 1 Chron. 7:29 say that eventually it was given to Manasseh, and Josh. 21:25 lists it as a city of Manasseh given to the Levites (along with Gath Rimmon).

During the period of the judges, Taanach was the site of a major battle between forces led by Barak and Deborah and those led by the Canaanite Sisera. The former were victorious, and this led to liberation from Canaanite oppression for a period (Judg. 5:19). During the time of Solomon, Taanach became a capital of one of the administrative districts formed by the king in order to provide supplies one month a year to the court (Baana son of Ahilud was the administrator [1 Kings 4:12]).

A village identified with modern Khirbet Ta’na el-Foqa, seven miles southeast of Shechem. The village is named as part of the northern boundary of the tribe of Ephraim (between Mikmethath and Janoah) in Josh. 16:5–9.

The third son of Hosah, a descendant of Merari. He was a Levite assigned to be a gatekeeper after the exile (1 Chron. 26:11).

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

A site in the mountains of Gilead toward which the Midianites fled after Gideon’s surprise attack (Judg. 7:22). The exact location is speculative because it is dependent on the location of other sites that are debated.

(1) The father of a person whom the kings of Israel and Aram wanted, in a coup attempt, to make king in Judah in place of Ahaz (Isa. 7:6). The exact identification of Tabeel is uncertain. It is probable that the original form of this name, which meant “God is good,” was mockingly respelled in the Hebrew text to the similar sounding “not good.” (2) A Samaritan official who, with several colleagues (Ezra 4:7), wrote a letter to the Persian king Artaxerxes to persuade him to stop the rebuilding of Jerusalem by the returnees from exile.

A location, whose name means “burning,” along the wilderness route of the exodus. The name recalls the anger of God, who sent out fire and burned the outer edges of the camp because of the Israelites’ complaining (Num. 11:3; Deut. 9:22).

“Tabernacle” in Hebrew (mishkan) is a general word for a tent or a dwelling. In the Pentateuch particularly, “tabernacle” most often refers to the special dwelling place of God among the Hebrew people during their wandering through the wilderness. The tabernacle was the abode of God’s glory before the building of Solomon’s temple in Jerusalem. The detailed description of the tabernacle and its construction comprise more than one-third of the book of Exodus (chaps. 25–40), signifying its theological importance to the life of God’s people before the forming of the nation-state of Israel.

The final biblical description of the tabernacle was committed to writing probably during the period of Israel’s exile in Babylon (587–537 BC). The exile of the Israelites was a time of spiritual wilderness in which Israel was a people bereft of their sanctuary, seemingly bereft of God’s presence. The vivid descriptions of the tabernacle in the Pentateuch reflect both nostalgia for the temple and identification with the wilderness generation. This experience likely provided the impetus for writing and preserving oral and written traditions about the tabernacle. The descriptions of the wilderness sanctuary in the texts of the OT enabled a vivid re-creation of the tabernacle in the mind’s eye.

The detailed command of God to build the tabernacle in Exod. 25–30 is part of a larger dramatic narrative. While Moses is on the mountain of God receiving the instructions for the tabernacle, the Hebrews have embarked on a festival of revelry and worship, offering sacrifices to a golden calf, constructed during Moses’ absence (32:1–19). Moses is furious and smashes the tablets of the Ten Commandments on the ground, and yet he returns to the mountain to intercede for the people. God punishes the people with a plague but does not destroy or abandon them completely, for “the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness” (34:6) renews covenant with the people, and Moses again returns from the mountain with the Ten Commandments (34:27–29). Exodus 35–40 then recounts the careful obedience with which the people adhere to God’s command to build the tabernacle, assiduously following the instructions given in Exod. 25–30.

The description of the tabernacle given in the text is of an ornate sanctuary within a tent structure situated at the very center of Israel’s camp. The tabernacle thus took the place of the tent of meeting described in Exod. 33:7–11, which was pitched outside the camp. However, the terms “tabernacle” and “tent of meeting” appear to be used synonymously in the Pentateuch after the construction of the tabernacle was completed. According to the text, the dimensions of the tabernacle were as follows: 150 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 7.5 feet high (Exod. 27:18). Around the exterior of the tabernacle was an outer courtyard where an altar for burnt offerings stood at the entrance to the tent of meeting, as well as a basin filled with water for the ritual purifications of the priests. Within the outer enclosure of the tabernacle stood a lampstand, an incense altar, and a table where the bread of the Presence was placed. Within the temple was a second enclosure, the holy of holies, where the ark of the covenant was placed beneath the wings of the golden cherubim.

Various kinds of priests served to care for the tabernacle and its offerings, utensils, and equipment. Aaron and his sons were ordained as ministering priests, who offered sacrifices on behalf of the people (Lev. 8–9). The descendants of Levi were appointed as assistants to Aaron and his sons, divided according to various tasks in the care of the tabernacle and its effects. The work of the Kohathites was “the care of the most holy things” (Num. 4:4), carrying the golden altar, the table of the Presence, various utensils, and vessels. The work of the Gershonites was to carry the curtains of the tent, its ropes, and other equipment (4:21–28). The work of the Merarites was to carry “the frames of the tabernacle, its crossbars, posts and bases, as well as the posts of the surrounding courtyard with their bases, tent pegs, ropes, all their equipment and everything related to their use” (4:31–32).

The commandments for building the tabernacle parallel the giving of the law to Moses: one shaped the people’s worship, and the other shaped the people’s ethic of living. The precise detail of the tabernacle’s construction emphasized the wondrous and dangerous power of God’s presence within the tent. After the building of the tabernacle, God no longer dwelled on a distant mountain but now resided perilously close in holy otherness. The assiduous ordering of the temple worship provided stability and structure to the people’s sojourning in a strange land, which was a time of uncertainty and struggle. Indeed, the tabernacle served as a tangible reminder of God’s presence and promise traveling alongside God’s people.

The Aramaic equivalent of the Greek name “Dorcas” (both mean “gazelle”). A Christian who lived in Joppa, she was well known for her good deeds. She became ill and died, and Peter, having heard the news, came and raised her from the dead (Acts 9:36–42).

From the Latin word tabula (“board”), “table” first denoted any flat surface, but especially one of wood or stone used for writing (Exod. 20:2–17). The Ten Commandments were originally inscribed upon two tables of stone. Eventually “table” in this sense was replaced by “tablet” (see Tablet).

Tables were used for eating, working, and displaying objects: domestic tables (Judg. 1:7; 1 Sam. 20:29), temple tables of Yahweh (2 Chron. 4:8; Ezek. 40:39–43) or of heathen gods (Isa. 65:11), the “Lord’s table” (Mal. 1:7, 12), and the table for the bread of the Presence in the sanctuary (Exod. 25:23–30; 1 Kings 7:48; Heb. 9:2).

Tables found in the ancient Near East usually stood no more than eighteen inches high. Most were made of wood (2 Kings 4:10), but the wealthy had tables of ornate stone. It was a great honor to be invited to eat at or be given food from the king’s table (2 Sam. 9:7, 10–13; 1 Kings 2:7; 4:27; Dan. 1:5). The custom of the rich reclining on couches around a low table (Amos 6:4; cf. 3:12) became commonplace in NT times. Although dining at a table was customary (Luke 22:21; Acts 6:2), to eat under the table was for dogs and the despised (Judg. 1:7; Matt. 15:27; Mark 7:28; Luke 16:21). Money changers used tables as stands where money was exchanged (Matt. 21:12; Mark 11:15).

Figuratively, “table” was used to represent the meal on which it was served. In the ancient Near East, eating with others expressed intimate fellowship and trust, yet Jesus shared table fellowship with Judas (Luke 22:21). At the Lord’s Table (i.e., Communion, Eucharist), Jesus is the host, who invites us to remember him as we eat (1 Cor. 10:21; 11:23–26). The imagery of a banquet table of thanksgiving is used to depict God’s provision for his people (Pss. 23:5; 78:19).

The genealogy of Noah’s sons in Gen. 10:1–32, which includes not only individuals but also names of places and nations.

Context and purpose. The Table of Nations follows the account of Noah and his sons after they emerged from the ark, developing the theme that from these three sons “came the people who were scattered over the whole earth” (Gen. 9:19). The story of the tower of Babel (11:1–9), placed after the Table of Nations, also continues the theme of the scattering of the earth’s population, showing that it occurred as a judgment from God. Thus, the purpose of the Table of Nations in Gen. 10 is to detail how Noah’s family multiplied and populated the earth as God intended, as well as to explain how this one family eventually scattered into a world consisting of many languages, tribes, and nations.

Although the chapter is presented as a genealogy of Noah’s family, it is not a “linear” genealogy, listing one descendant per generation with the primary purpose of tracing ancestry (as in Gen. 5; 11), but is rather a “segmented” genealogy, listing multiple individuals of the same generation with the goal of identifying political, geographic, and ethnic affiliations.

Structure and content. Although Gen. 10 first lists Noah’s sons as Shem, Ham, and Japheth, the genealogy proper commences with Japheth (vv. 1–5), then Ham (vv. 6–20), with Shem at the end (vv. 21–31). This arrangement highlights the importance of Shem’s line and foreshadows Gen. 11, which reveals that Abram was descended from Shem. Each section ends with a similar statement summarizing how each family has been categorized by its clans, languages, territories, and nations (10:5, 20, 31).

The Table of Nations lists fourteen Japhethites, some from northern Iran (Madai = Media), Turkey (Javan = Ionians), and the Mediterranean islands (Elishah in Cyprus). Among Ham’s thirty-one descendants are people from Ethiopia (Cush), Libya (Put), Egypt (Mizraim), and Canaan. The twenty-six Shemites include some from Babylonia (Elam), Assyria (Ashur), and the Arabian Peninsula (Joktan).

Tablets as rigid flat sheets (plate, pad, or slab) made of stone, clay, wood, and perhaps bronze, gold, and lead are mentioned in the Bible. The Sumerians produced written documents and primers on clay tablets as early as 2500 BC. Three meanings can be applied: (1) the stone tablets, and their replacements, on which God wrote the Ten Commandments given to Moses at Mount Sinai (Exod. 24:12; 34:1–4, 27–29; Deut. 10:1–5; Heb. 9:4); (2) ordinary writing tablets made of clay or wood (Ezek. 4:1; Luke 1:63); (3) figuratively, a tablet of the heart, on which God’s law is written (Prov. 3:3; 7:3; Jer. 17:1; 2 Cor. 3:3).

A mountain in Lower Galilee, southwest of the Sea of Galilee and north of the Hill of Moreh and Mount Gilboa. Tabor’s strategic location and ease of fortification led to it becoming a location of military note throughout history, including its fortification by Josephus during the Jewish revolt. In Judg. 4:1–15 Deborah tells Barak to go to Mount Tabor and then to lead an attack from Tabor upon Sisera’s men, who are then routed. In Judg. 8:18 Mount Tabor is also mentioned when Gideon confronts and kills Zebah and Zalmunna, two kings of Midian. Hosea uses the phrase “a net spread out on Tabor” to illustrate his judgment against Israel (Hos. 5:1).

The “great tree of Tabor” (KJV: “plain of Tabor”; NRSV: “oak of Tabor”) refers to a place where Samuel instructed Saul to meet three men who were on their way to Bethel (1 Sam. 10:3). See also Oak of Tabor.

A small, handheld musical instrument, probably a small hand drum that may have had bells or small pieces of metal around its perimeter. It was used as part of the music and dancing that accompanied festivals (Isa. 5:12), farewells (Gen. 31:27), worship (Pss. 81:2; 149:3; 150:4), songs of triumph (Exod. 15:20), prophetic ecstasy (1 Sam. 10:5), and the procession of the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6:5). Some English versions (e.g., KJV, ESV, NRSV) use the terms “tabret” and “tambourine.” See also Music, Instruments, Dancing.

The son of Hezion and the father of King Ben-Hadad of Syria (1 Kings 15:18).

Ten times in Exodus the KJV translates the plural of the Hebrew word qeres as “taches,” referring to the hooks or clasps that joined the individual curtains of the tabernacle into one unit (Exod. 26:6 [2×], 11 [2×], 33; 35:11; 36:13 [2×], 18; 39:33).

Family name of Josheb-Basshebeth, chief of David’s mighty warriors (2 Sam. 23:8). If his ancestor Hakmoni is mentioned in 1 Chron. 27:32, then the form Hakmonite (1 Chron. 11:11) is probably correct.

In the KJV, apparatus on a ship used to work the sails and handle cargo (Isa. 33:23 [NIV: “rigging”]; Acts 27:19 [NIV: “tackle”]). During a storm, some gear was thrown overboard to lighten the ship carrying the apostle Paul (Acts 27:18–19), though probably not the tackle or rigging, since the sailors later were able to raise the ship’s foresail (27:40).

A city built in the Syrian Desert between Mari and Damascus. It was fortified by Solomon, probably as part of his control of the important trade routes between Palestine and Mesopotamia (2 Chron. 8:4). Some Hebrew manuscripts read “Tamar” in 1 Kings 9:18 as “Tadmor” (so also the NIV). The site was renamed “Palmyra” during the Hellenistic period and was destroyed by the Romans in the third century AD.

(1) The third son of Ephraim, ancestor of the Tahanite clan (Num. 26:35). The parallel list in 1 Chron. 7:20 reads “Tahath.” (2) An ancestor of Joshua (1 Chron. 7:25).

Clan of the descendants of Tahan, third son of Ephraim (Num. 26:35).

A Hebrew transliteration of an Egyptian place name for an outpost bordering Sinai (see Jer. 2:16; 46:14). The word means “the fortress of Penhase” or “the house of the Nubian.” Penhase was a Theban general who quelled a rebellion in the Nile Delta (eleventh century BC). After the destruction of Jerusalem, a group of Israelites desired to escape to Tahpanhes. Jeremiah counseled against this, warning that Nebuchadnezzar would eventually reach Tahpanhes, and prophesying that if the people remained in the land, God would grant them mercy. However, the Jews did not listen and fled to Egypt, taking Jeremiah with them. It was in Tahpanhes that Jeremiah finished out his prophetic career (Jer. 42:19; 43:7–9; 44:1). Ezekiel also included this city in his oracle against Egypt (Ezek. 30:18 [NRSV, KJV, ESV: “Tehaphnehes”]). The site of the city is associated with Daphnai (Tell Defneh, near Lake Manzaleh in the northeast Delta).

The third of the four sons of Nahor and his concubine Reumah (Gen. 22:24).

(1) A Levite, the son of Assir and an ancestor of Samuel (1 Chron. 6:24, 37). (2) An Ephraimite, the son of Bered (1 Chron. 7:20). (3) An Ephraimite, the son of Eleadah (1 Chron. 7:20). (4) An encampment of the Israelites during the wilderness wandering of the exodus (Num. 33:26–27).

Family name of Josheb-Basshebeth, chief of David’s mighty warriors (2 Sam. 23:8). If his ancestor Hakmoni is mentioned in 1 Chron. 27:32, then the form Hakmonite (1 Chron. 11:11) is probably correct.

Family name of Josheb-Basshebeth, chief of David’s mighty warriors (2 Sam. 23:8). If his ancestor Hakmoni is mentioned in 1 Chron. 27:32, then the form Hakmonite (1 Chron. 11:11) is probably correct.

A Hebrew transliteration of an Egyptian place name for an outpost bordering Sinai (see Jer. 2:16; 46:14). The word means “the fortress of Penhase” or “the house of the Nubian.” Penhase was a Theban general who quelled a rebellion in the Nile Delta (eleventh century BC). After the destruction of Jerusalem, a group of Israelites desired to escape to Tahpanhes. Jeremiah counseled against this, warning that Nebuchadnezzar would eventually reach Tahpanhes, and prophesying that if the people remained in the land, God would grant them mercy. However, the Jews did not listen and fled to Egypt, taking Jeremiah with them. It was in Tahpanhes that Jeremiah finished out his prophetic career (Jer. 42:19; 43:7–9; 44:1). Ezekiel also included this city in his oracle against Egypt (Ezek. 30:18 [NRSV, KJV, ESV: “Tehaphnehes”]). The site of the city is associated with Daphnai (Tell Defneh, near Lake Manzaleh in the northeast Delta).

An Egyptian queen whose sister was the wife of the Edomite king Hadad, an enemy of David and Solomon. Tahpenes weaned Hadad’s son (her nephew) Genubath in the house of Pharaoh in Egypt (1 Kings 11:19–20).

The third of the four sons of Micah, he was a descendant of King Saul (1 Chron. 9:41). In 1 Chron. 8:35 his name is spelled “Tarea.”

One of the regions listed in David’s census. David sent Joab and his army commanders to take a census of the fighting men of Israel. After traveling through Jazer, the men went on to “Gilead and the region of Tahtim Hodshi” and then moved on to Dan Jaan and Sidon (2 Sam. 24:5–6).

It is difficult to imagine a world without consistent metrological systems. Society’s basic structures, from economy to law, require a uniform and accurate method for measuring time, distances, weights, volumes, and so on. In today’s world, technological advancements allow people to measure various aspects of the universe with incredible accuracy—from nanometers to light-years, milligrams to kilograms.

The metrological systems employed in biblical times span the same concepts as our own modern-day systems: weight, linear distance, and volume or capacity. However, the systems of weights and measurements employed during the span of biblical times were not nearly as accurate or uniform as the modern units employed today. Preexisting weight and measurement systems existed in the contextual surroundings of both the OT and the NT authors and thus heavily influenced the systems employed by the Israelite nation as well as the NT writers. There was great variance between the different standards used merchant to merchant (Gen. 23:16), city to city, region to region, time period to time period, even despite the commands to use honest scales and honest weights (Lev. 19:35–36; Deut. 25:13–15; Prov. 11:1; 16:11; 20:23; Ezek. 45:10).

Furthermore, inconsistencies and contradictions exist within the written records as well as between archaeological specimens. In addition, significant differences are found between preexilic and postexilic measurements in the biblical texts, and an attempt at merging dry capacity and liquid volume measurements further complicated the issue. This is to be expected, especially when we consider modern-day inconsistencies—for example, 1 US liquid pint = 0.473 liters, while 1 US dry pint = 0.550 liters. Thus, all modern equivalents given below are approximations, and even the best estimates have a margin of error of + 5 percent or more.

Weights

Weights in biblical times were carried in a bag or a satchel (Deut. 25:13; Prov. 16:11; Mic. 6:11) and were stones, usually carved into various animal shapes for easy identification. Their side or flat bottom was inscribed with the associated weight and unit of measurement. Thousands of historical artifacts, which differ by significant amounts, have been discovered by archaeologists and thus have greatly complicated the work of determining accurate modern-day equivalents.

Beka. Approximately 1⁄5 ounce, or 5.6 grams. Equivalent to 10 gerahs or ½ the sanctuary shekel (Exod. 38:26). Used to measure metals and goods such as gold (Gen. 24:22).

Gerah. 1⁄50 ounce, or 0.56 grams. Equivalent to 1⁄10 beka, 1⁄20 shekel (Exod. 30:13; Lev. 27:25).

Litra. Approximately 12 ounces, or 340 grams. A Roman measure of weight. Used only twice in the NT (John 12:3; 19:39). The precursor to the modern British pound.

Mina. Approximately 1¼ pounds, or 0.56 kilograms. Equivalent to 50 shekels. Used to weigh gold (1 Kings 10:17; Ezra 2:69), silver (Neh. 7:71–72), and other goods. The prophet Ezekiel redefined the proper weight: “The shekel is to consist of twenty gerahs. Twenty shekels plus twenty-five shekels plus fifteen shekels equal one mina” (Ezek. 45:12). Before this redefinition, there were arguably 50 shekels per mina. In Jesus’ parable of the servants, he describes the master entrusting to his three servants varying amounts—10 minas, 5 minas, 1 mina—implying a monetary value (Luke 19:11–24), probably of either silver or gold. One mina was equivalent to approximately three months’ wages for a laborer.

Pim. Approximately 1⁄3 ounce, or 9.3 grams. Equivalent to 2⁄3 shekel. Referenced only once in the Scriptures (1 Sam. 13:21).

Shekel. Approximately 2⁄5 ounce, or 11 grams. Equivalent to approximately 2 bekas. The shekel is the basic unit of weight measurement in Israelite history, though its actual weight varied significantly at different historical points. Examples include the “royal shekel” (2 Sam. 14:26), the “common shekel” (2 Kings 7:1), and the “sanctuary shekel,” which was equivalent to 20 gerahs (e.g., Exod. 30:13; Lev. 27:25; Num. 3:47). Because it was used to weigh out silver or gold, the shekel also functioned as a common monetary unit in the NT world.

Talent. Approximately 75 pounds, or 34 kilograms. Equivalent to approximately 60 minas. Various metals were weighed using talents: gold (Exod. 25:39; 37:24; 1 Chron. 20:2), silver (Exod. 38:27; 1 Kings 20:39; 2 Kings 5:22), and bronze (Exod. 38:29). This probably is derived from the weight of a load that a man could carry.

Table 12. Biblical Weights and Measures and Their Modern Equivalents:

Weights

Beka – 10 geraahs; ½ shekel = 1/5 ounce = 5.6 grams

Gerah – 1/10 beka; 1/20 shekel = 1/50 ounce = 0.56 grams

Litra – 12 ounces = 340 grams

Mina – 50 shekels = 1 ¼ pounds = 0.56 kilograms

Pim – 2/3 shekel = 1/3 ounce = 9.3 grams

Shekel – 2 bekas; 20 gerahs = 2/5 ounce = 11 grams

Talent – 60 minas = 75 pounds = 34 kilograms

Linear measurements

Cubit – 6 handbreadths = 18 inches = 45.7 centimeters

Day’s journey = 20-25 miles = 32-40 kilometerse

Fingerbreadth – ¼ handbreadth = ¾ inch = 1.9 centimeterse

Handbreadth – 1/6 cubit = 3 inches = 7.6 centimeters

Milion – 1 mile = 1.6 kilometers

Orguia – 1/100 stadion = 5 feet 11 inches = 1.8 meters

Reed/rod – 108 inches = 274 centimeters

Sabbath day’s journey – 2,000 cubits = ¾ mile = 1.2 kilometers

Span – 3 handbreadths = 9 inches = 22.8 centimeters

Stadion – 100 orguiai = 607 feet = 185 meters

Capacity

Cab – 1 omer = ½ gallon = 1.9 liters

Choinix – ¼ gallon = 0.9 liters

Cor – 1 homer; 10 ephahs = 6 bushels; 48.4 gallons = 183 liters

Ephah – 10 omers; 1/10 homer = 3/5 bushel; 6 gallons = 22.7 liters

Homer – 10 ephahs; 1 cor = 6 bushels; 48.4 gallons = 183 liters

Koros – 10 bushels; 95 gallons – 360 liters

Omer – 1/10 ephah; 1/100 homer = 2 quarts = 1.9 liters

Saton – 1 seah = 7 quarts = 6.6 liters

Seah – 1/3 ephah; 1 saton = 7 quarts = 6.6 liters

Liquid Volume

Bath – 1 ephah = 6 gallons = 22.7 liters

Batos – 8 gallons = 30.3 liters

Hin – 1/6 bath; 12 logs = 1 gallon; 4 quarts = 3.8 liters

Log – 1/72 bath; 1/12 hin = 1/3 quart = 0.3 liters

Metretes – 10 gallons = 37.8 literes

Linear Measurements

Linear measurements were based upon readily available natural measurements such as the distance between the elbow and the hand or between the thumb and the little finger. While convenient, this method of measurement gave rise to significant inconsistencies.

Cubit. Approximately 18 inches, or 45.7 centimeters. Equivalent to 6 handbreadths. The standard biblical measure of linear distance, as the shekel is the standard measurement of weight. The distance from the elbow to the outstretched fingertip. Used to describe height, width, length (Exod. 25:10), distance (John 21:8), and depth (Gen. 7:20). Use of the cubit is ancient. For simple and approximate conversion into modern units, divide the number of cubits in half for meters, then multiply the number of meters by 3 to arrive at feet.

1 cubit = 2 spans = 6 handbreadths = 24 fingerbreadths

Day’s journey. An approximate measure of distance equivalent to about 20–25 miles, or 32–40 kilometers. Several passages reference a single or multiple days’ journey as a description of the distance traveled or the distance between two points: “a day’s journey” (Num. 11:31; 1 Kings 19:4), “a three-day journey” (Gen. 30:36; Exod. 3:18; 8:27; Jon. 3:3), “seven days” (Gen. 31:23), and “eleven days” (Deut. 1:2). After visiting Jerusalem for Passover, Jesus’ parents journeyed for a day (Luke 2:44) before realizing that he was not with them.

Fingerbreadth. The width of the finger, or ¼ of a handbreadth, approximately ¾ inch, or 1.9 centimeters. The fingerbreadth was the beginning building block of the biblical metrological system for linear measurements. Used only once in the Scriptures, to describe the bronze pillars (Jer. 52:21).

Handbreadth. Approximately 3 inches, or 7.6 centimeters. Equivalent to 1/6 cubit, or four fingerbreadths. Probably the width at the base of the four fingers. A short measure of length, thus compared to a human’s brief life (Ps. 39:5). Also the width of the rim on the bread table (Exod. 25:25) and the thickness of the bronze Sea (1 Kings 7:26).

Milion. Translated “mile” in Matt. 5:41. Greek transliteration of Roman measurement mille passuum, “a thousand paces.”

Orguia. Approximately 5 feet 11 inches, or 1.8 meters. Also translated as “fathom.” A Greek unit of measurement. Probably the distance between outstretched fingertip to fingertip. Used to measure the depth of water (Acts 27:28).

Reed/rod. Approximately 108 inches, or 274 centimeters. This is also a general term for a measuring device rather than a specific linear distance (Ezek. 40:3, 5; 42:16–19; Rev. 11:1; 21:15).

Sabbath day’s journey. Approximately ¾ mile, or 1.2 kilometers (Acts 1:12). About 2,000 cubits.

Span. Approximately 9 inches, or 22.8 centimeters. Equivalent to three handbreadths, and ½ cubit. The distance from outstretched thumb tip to little-finger tip. The length and width of the priest’s breastpiece (Exod. 28:16).

Stadion. Approximately 607 feet, or 185 meters. Equivalent to 100 orguiai. Used in the measurement of large distances (Matt. 14:24; Luke 24:13; John 6:19; 11:18; Rev. 14:20; 21:16).

Land Area

Seed. The size of a piece of land could also be measured on the basis of how much seed was required to plant that field (Lev. 27:16; 1 Kings 18:32).

Yoke. Fields and lands were measured using logical, available means. In biblical times, this meant the amount of land a pair of yoked animals could plow in one day (1 Sam. 14:14; Isa. 5:10).

Capacity

Cab. Approximately ½ gallon, or 1.9 liters. Equivalent to 1 omer. Mentioned only once in the Scriptures, during the siege of Samaria (2 Kings 6:25).

Choinix. Approximately ¼ gallon, or 0.9 liters. A Greek measurement, mentioned only once in Scripture (Rev. 6:6).

Cor. Approximately 6 bushels (48.4 gallons, or 183 liters). Equal to the homer, and to 10 ephahs. Used for measuring dry volumes, particularly of flour and grains (1 Kings 4:22; 1 Kings 5:11; 2 Chron. 2:10; 27:5; Ezra 7:22). In the LXX, cor is also a measure of liquid volume, particularly oil (1 Kings 5:11; 2 Chron. 2:10; Ezra 45:14).

Ephah. Approximately 3⁄5 bushel (6 gallons, or 22.7 liters). Equivalent to 10 omers, or 1⁄10 homer. Used for measuring flour and grains (e.g., Exod. 29:40; Lev. 6:20). Isaiah prophesied a day of reduced agricultural yield, when a homer of seed would produce only an ephah of grain (Isa. 5:10). The ephah was equal in size to the bath (Ezek. 45:11), which typically was used for liquid measurements.

Homer. Approximately 6 bushels (48.4 gallons, or 183 liters). Equivalent to 1 cor, or 10 ephahs. Used for measuring dry volumes, particularly of various grains (Lev. 27:16; Isa. 5:10; Ezek. 45:11, 13–14; Hos. 3:2). This is probably a natural measure of the load that a donkey can carry, in the range of 90 kilograms. There may have existed a direct link between capacity and monetary value, given Lev. 27:16: “fifty shekels of silver to a homer of barley seed.” A logical deduction of capacity and cost based on known equivalences might look something like this:

1 homer = 1 mina; 1 ephah = 5 shekels; 1 omer = 1 beka

Koros. Approximately 10 bushels (95 gallons, or 360 liters). A Greek measure of grain (Luke 16:7).

Omer. Approximately 2 quarts, or 1.9 liters. Equivalent to 1⁄10 ephah, 1⁄100 homer (Ezek. 45:11). Used by Israel in the measurement and collection of manna in the wilderness (Exod. 16:16–36) and thus roughly equivalent to a person’s daily food ration.

Saton. Approximately 7 quarts, or 6.6 liters. Equivalent to 1 seah. The measurement of flour in Jesus’ parable of the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 13:33; Luke 13:21).

Seah. Approximately 7 quarts, or 6.6 liters. Equivalent to 1⁄3 ephah, or 1 saton. Used to measure flour, grain, seed, and other various dry goods (e.g., 2 Kings 7:1; 1 Sam. 25:18).

Liquid Volume

Bath. Approximately 6 gallons, or 22.7 liters. Equivalent to 1 ephah, which typically was used for measurements of dry capacity. Used in the measurement of water (1 Kings 7:26), oil (1 Kings 5:11), and wine (2 Chron. 2:10; Isa. 5:10).

Batos. Approximately 8 gallons, or 30.3 liters. A Greek transliteration of the Hebrew word bath (see above). A measure of oil (Luke 16:6).

Hin. Approximately 4 quarts (1 gallon, or 3.8 liters). Equivalent to 1⁄6 bath and 12 logs. Used in the measurement of water (Ezek. 4:11), oil (Ezek. 46:5), and wine (Num. 28:14).

Log. Approximately 1⁄3 quart, or 0.3 liter. Equivalent to 1⁄72 bath and 1⁄12 hin. Mentioned five times in Scripture, specifically used to measure oil (Lev. 14:10–24).

Metretes. Approximately 10 gallons, or 37.8 liters. Used in the measurement of water at the wedding feast (John 2:6).

The KJV and RSV rendering of Jesus’ words in Mark 5:41 to Jairus’s daughter. The NIV, following a different manuscript tradition, reads “Talitha koum.” The underlying Aramaic phrase, talyetha’ koumi, literally means “Little girl, get up!” Mark’s addition of “I say to you” in his paraphrase accurately conveys the sense of the command. Matthew and Luke also record Jesus’ healing of Jairus’s daughter (Matt. 9:23–26; Luke 8:49–56), but only Mark includes the Aramaic words that Jesus spoke.

The KJV and RSV rendering of Jesus’ words in Mark 5:41 to Jairus’s daughter. The NIV, following a different manuscript tradition, reads “Talitha koum.” The underlying Aramaic phrase, talyetha’ koumi, literally means “Little girl, get up!” Mark’s addition of “I say to you” in his paraphrase accurately conveys the sense of the command. Matthew and Luke also record Jesus’ healing of Jairus’s daughter (Matt. 9:23–26; Luke 8:49–56), but only Mark includes the Aramaic words that Jesus spoke.

(1) One of three Anakite leaders (with Ahiman and Sheshai), mentioned first in the account of the spies’ mission to the promised land in the region around the city of Hebron (Num. 13:22). One of the spies, Caleb, drove them out of the region (Josh. 15:14). However, they must have repossessed the area because they are also described as having been driven from the area by the men of Judah after the death of Joshua (Judg. 1:10). (2) King of Geshur (a region in the lower Golan Heights), whose daughter Maakah married David. This marriage sealed a political alliance, but David and Maakah’s son Absalom fled to Talmai for refuge after he killed David’s firstborn son, Amnon (2 Sam. 3:3; 13:37; 1 Chron. 3:2).

(1) A priestly gatekeeper at the time of the early postexilic period (Ezra 2:42; Neh. 7:45). He and his associates were stationed on the east at the King’s Gate (1 Chron. 9:17). (2) A priestly gatekeeper at the time of Ezra and Nehemiah (Neh. 11:19; 12:25).

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 2:53; Neh. 7:55). 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.

(1) Judah’s daughter-in-law who bore him twin sons, Perez and Zerah, thus carrying on the family of Judah (1 Chron. 2:4). In Gen. 38, Tamar, after being married to Judah’s first son, Er, and then his second son, Onan (both killed by God for their wickedness), was to marry Judah’s third son, Shelah, according to Israelite custom. Afraid that Shelah too would die, Judah resisted this duty and instructed Tamar to live as a widow at her father’s house.

When Tamar saw that she would not be allowed to marry Shelah, she disguised herself as a prostitute and was approached by Judah. Providing her with a pledge, Judah impregnated Tamar. Tamar, when found to be pregnant, was accused of acting unscrupulously. But upon revealing Judah’s pledge, Tamar was declared by Judah to be “more righteous than I” (Gen. 38:26). Tamar is mentioned later in Scripture in a blessing (Ruth 4:12) and holds a place in the genealogy of Jesus (Matt. 1:3).

(2) The daughter of King David who was raped by her half brother, Amnon. The violence done to Tamar was later avenged by her brother Absalom, who killed Amnon (2 Sam. 13). (3) The beautiful daughter of Absalom (2 Sam. 14:27), perhaps named after her aunt. (4) A location on the southeastern boundary of Judah (Ezek. 47:18–19; 48:28). This may be Hazezon Tamar (Gen. 14:7), which became En Gedi (2 Chron. 20:2). See also Baal Tamar.

A small shrub or tree with tiny leaves and slender branches common in desert regions and useful for shade or wood. Abraham planted a tamarisk tree as a sign of his covenant with Abimelek (Gen. 21:33). Tamarisks were also used as landmarks identifying the locations where Saul and his officials met during his pursuit of David (1 Sam. 22:6) and where the bones of Saul and Jonathan were buried at Jabesh (31:13). Tamarisk fruit was the possible source of the manna that the Israelites ate in the wilderness.

A small, handheld musical instrument, probably a small hand drum that may have had bells or small pieces of metal around its perimeter. It was used as part of the music and dancing that accompanied festivals (Isa. 5:12), farewells (Gen. 31:27), worship (Pss. 81:2; 149:3; 150:4), songs of triumph (Exod. 15:20), prophetic ecstasy (1 Sam. 10:5), and the procession of the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6:5). Some English versions (e.g., KJV, ESV, NRSV) use the terms “tabret” and “tambourine.” See also Music, Instruments, Dancing.

A Babylonian deity. Yahweh, the God of Israel, revealed the extent of Judah’s apostasy to Ezekiel in several visions, including one in which he sees women “mourning the god Tammuz” (Ezek. 8:14). The seemingly enigmatic reference was a clear accusation of idolatry and lack of trust in Yahweh. In the mythology, Tammuz (Babylonian Dumuzi) dies, and his wife, the goddess Inanna, descends to the netherworld to bring him back. In his absence the land is distressed and lacks fertility (winter), but his return brings restoration (spring). Women wept over his departure in an annual ritual.

Taanach has been confidently identified as Tell Ta’annek, located in the Jezreel Valley, five miles southeast of Megiddo. The mound is imposing, covering eleven acres and rising well over one hundred feet above the valley floor.

The site was explored by Ernst Sellin between 1902 and 1904 and by Paul Lapp in 1963, 1966, and 1968. The second expedition located remains from the Early Bronze Age II–III (3000–2200 BC). The site continued to be occupied through the OT period. It was reused by Arab forces in the eleventh and twelfth centuries AD.

Although no large-scale architectural structures were found there, it had many fortresses and cisterns. Notable among the ruins is a cache of thirteen Akkadian tablets dated to the fifteenth century BC. They were letters and lists of administrative names.

Taanach is mentioned for the first time in an inscription at Karnak of Pharaoh Thutmose III, who included it among cities conquered on his first campaign into Asia in 1468 BC. It was also mentioned as defeated by Shishak I in 918 BC.

The king of Taanach was one of many defeated by Joshua, though the city itself was not said to have been taken (Josh. 12:21). While at first associated with Asher and Issachar, Josh. 17:11 and 1 Chron. 7:29 say that eventually it was given to Manasseh, and Josh. 21:25 lists it as a city of Manasseh given to the Levites (along with Gath Rimmon).

During the period of the judges, Taanach was the site of a major battle between forces led by Barak and Deborah and those led by the Canaanite Sisera. The former were victorious, and this led to liberation from Canaanite oppression for a period (Judg. 5:19). During the time of Solomon, Taanach became a capital of one of the administrative districts formed by the king in order to provide supplies one month a year to the court (Baana son of Ahilud was the administrator [1 Kings 4:12]).

A Netophathite who was the father of Seraiah. This son was a captain of the armies who remained in Judah when Gedaliah was appointed governor by the conquering Babylonians (2 Kings 25:23; Jer. 40:8).

A city on the Tanitic plain of the Nile, it is associated with Hebron (Num. 13:22) and later is known as the Greek city of Tanis. The name is found in Egyptian and Assyrian archaeological finds and can be associated with the court of Pharaoh (Isa. 19:11, 13; 30:4). Thus, Zoan is a city of great importance in the Nile Delta and is mentioned in judgment along with Thebes (Ezek. 30:14). The psalmist mentions the region of Zoan (Ps. 78:12, 43), which is also known as the region of Rameses.

A daughter of King Solomon and the wife of Ben-Abinadab, Solomon’s administrator of Naphoth Dor, one of the twelve districts providing monthly food and provisions for the king’s household (1 Kings 4:11).

(1) The second of the four sons of Hebron, a member of the clan of Caleb (son of Hezron) in the tribe of Judah (1 Chron. 2:43). (2) A town in the northern Shephelah, in one of the districts of Judah (Josh. 15:34). The modern village of Beit Natif, west of Bethlehem, has been suggested as a possible location. (3) A town that formed the northern border of Ephraim (Josh. 16:8). Although the town belonged to Ephraim, the land of Tappuah apparently belonged to Manasseh (Josh. 17:8). (4) Some versions (e.g., NLT) emend “Tiphsah” to “Tappuah,” the town in the territory of Tirzah that King Menahem destroyed (2 Kings 15:16). It probably should not be identified with the Tappuah of Josh. 16:8 because of its identification in 2 Kings 15:16 with Tirzah, which would be too far from Ephraim. See also Beth Tappuah; En Tappuah; Tiphsah.

A tarlike substance used as mortar for setting bricks, as in Gen. 11:3 (NIV: “tar”) with the building of a ziggurat. It was also used, along with pitch, as a waterproofing agent for Noah’s ark (Gen. 6:14) and for the reed basket in which Moses was placed as an infant (Exod. 2:3).

(1) The father of Abram (Abraham), Nahor, and Haran (Gen. 11:24–32). After Har-an’s death in Ur, Terah and family traveled to the city of Harran, where Terah died at the age of 205. He was a pagan (Josh. 24:2), perhaps a moon worshiper, for his name is related to the Hebrew word for “moon,” and Ur and Harran are known ancient centers of moon worship. Abram only moved after his father died (Acts 7:4), suggesting that Abram, though listed first among the sons, was not the oldest son, being only seventy-five at the time (Gen. 12:4). (2) An Israelite wilderness encampment (Num. 33:27–28).

A city in the territory allotted to Benjamin (Josh. 18:27). The exact location is unknown, but it likely was situated northwest of Jerusalem.

The third of the four sons of Micah and a descendant of King Saul (1 Chron. 8:35). In 1 Chron. 9:41 his name is spelled “Tahrea.”

Weeds (also called “darnel” or “cockle”) that resemble wheat until the ears of grain appear. Tares are used as a figure for unbelievers in the parable of the tares/weeds (Matt. 13:24–30, 36–43).

A translation of the Hebrew OT into Aramaic. In the period of the exile and thereafter, Aramaic was the dominant language of the ancient Near Eastern world. This is the everyday language that Jews ultimately adopted, and so the need arose to translate the OT into this new language. The verbal form of “Targum” means “to translate” or “to explain,” and an early example of this perhaps is found in Neh. 8:8, where the law was read to the postexilic community in Hebrew and “translated” or “explained” to the people. There are numerous Targumim that date from before the time of Christ into the medieval period. As translations, some of these Targumim also include extraneous material aimed at explaining the text itself. For example, the Targum to the Pentateuch known as Targum Pseudo-Jonathan is roughly twice the length of the Hebrew version. This attests to the explanatory function of the targumic traditions. The Targumim are also an important component of NT study, as they help us glean insights into the Judaism of Jesus’ day.

In Ezra 4:9 the KJV transliteration of the Aramaic term tarpelaye’ in the list of officials who sent a letter against Jerusalem to Artaxerxes. Some modern versions translate the word as “officials” (e.g., ESV, NRSV; NIV: “administrators”), while others describe them as people from Tripolis (e.g., HCSB, MSG).

The Hebrew word tarshish refers to a precious stone (NIV: “topaz”; Exod. 28:20; Ezek. 1:16). The name of the stone probably comes from its place of origin (see #4, below). “Tarshish” is also used as a name. (1) A son of Javan, grandson of Japheth, and great-grandson of Noah (Gen. 10:4; 1 Chron. 1:7). (2) A son of Bilhan, grandson of Jediael, and great-grandson of Benjamin (1 Chron. 7:10). (3) One of the seven princes of Persia and Media who had access to the presence of King Ahasuerus and advised him to put away Queen Vashti because of her refusal to obey the king’s command to appear before the banquet (Esther 1:14).

(4) A place frequently mentioned in the OT. Solomon engaged in trade with Tarshish (1 Kings 10:22 NRSV, NASB; 2 Chron. 9:21 NRSV, NASB), and it is described as a source of precious metals such as gold and silver (Jer. 10:9; Ezek. 27:12). Its location is unknown, but it is associated with islands (Ps. 72:10 NRSV, NASB) and with Jonah’s flight by ship from Joppa on the Mediterranean (Jon. 1:3). Both Tartessus in southwest Spain and the island of Sardinia have been suggested as possible sites.

The phrase “ships of Tarshish” (Ps. 48:7; Isa. 23:1) may refer to a fleet originating from Tar-shish or more generally to a type of seaworthy merchant vessel. It is thus sometimes translated by the NIV as “trading ships” (1 Kings 10:22; 22:48).

The capital of the Roman province of Cilicia and the birthplace of Paul (Acts 9:11; 21:39; 22:3). When some Hellenistic Jews sought to kill Paul in Jerusalem, he was sent to Tarsus for his safety (9:30). Barnabas, who had been sent by the Jerusalem church to Antioch, went from there to Tarsus looking for Paul, found him, and brought him back to Antioch (11:25).

A deity worshiped by the Avvites, a people whom the Assyrians sent to resettle Samaria after the Israelites were deported (2 Kings 17:31). “Tartak” probably is an intentional corruption of the name “Atargatis,” the Syrian fish-goddess (as she was sometimes depicted) and consort of Hadad.

The title of a high position in the Assyrian army (2 Kings 18:17 NRSV), perhaps a “commander-in-chief” (ESV) or “supreme commander” (NIV) (Isa. 20:1).

In Greek and Roman mythology, Tartarus is a place in Hades or the underworld where the wicked are sent for punishment. The name “Tartarus” appears in some English versions of 2 Pet. 2:4 (e.g., HCSB; see NIV mg.) based on a transliteration of the Greek term, but most translations render it as “hell.” This verse describes the place where God sent the angels when they sinned, likely alluding to the imprisonment of angels in Tartarus recounted in 1 Enoch (esp. 20.2). See also Hell.

An overseer appointed by Pharaoh to enslave the Israelites after the death of Joseph’s generation. The taskmasters (NIV: “slave drivers”) failed to stunt the Israelites’ population growth (Exod. 1:12), but they did make life miserable for the Israelite slaves (3:7; 5:13).

The Israelites were instructed to make tassels on the corners of their garments as visible reminders to obey God’s commandments. Each tassel was to incorporate a blue cord (Num. 15:37–41). This follows a severe admonition against one who sins defiantly, thus blaspheming against God. In that context, the command to wear fringes demonstrates the need for visible warnings. A summary statement appears in Deut. 22:12.

When Jesus condemned the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, he noted their concern to make long fringes for the sake of appearance yet without maintaining justice (Matt. 23:4–6). There was also a supposition in the wider culture that power was bound up in the fringes on the garments. Those who suffered illness touched the “edge” of Jesus’ garment (Matt. 14:36; Mark 6:56). A woman who had suffered with a hemorrhage for twelve years was healed by touching the kraspedon (“tassel, fringe, edge”) of Jesus’ cloak, and notably, he declared that power had gone out from him (Luke 8:40–48).

A Persian governor of the lands east of the Euphrates during the reign of Da-rius I, as attested by a cuneiform text from 502 BC. In 1 Esdras 6–7, he is called “Sisinnes.” Together with Shethar-Bozenai and other officials, Tattenai wrote to Darius to inquire whether the Jews had permission to rebuild their temple (Ezra 5:6–17). Darius ordered not only to allow the Jews to rebuild but to help provide whatever the priests required (6:1–12). Tattenai and his associates dutifully followed Darius’s instructions (6:13).

A Persian governor of the lands east of the Euphrates during the reign of Da-rius I, as attested by a cuneiform text from 502 BC. In 1 Esdras 6–7, he is called “Sisinnes.” Together with Shethar-Bozenai and other officials, Tattenai wrote to Darius to inquire whether the Jews had permission to rebuild their temple (Ezra 5:6–17). Darius ordered not only to allow the Jews to rebuild but to help provide whatever the priests required (6:1–12). Tattenai and his associates dutifully followed Darius’s instructions (6:13).

In the Roman Empire, tax collectors (KJV: “publicans”) were employed to help collect taxes in the provinces. People bid for the job of tax collector, and they were compensated by collecting more than the required tax from the people. Tax collectors were despised by Jews as greedy because of the excessive profits they reaped. They also were counted as traitors because they worked for the Romans. In the NT, tax collectors often are associated with Gentiles and sinners (Matt. 5:46–47; 11:19; 21:32).

Jesus was criticized by the Jewish leaders for eating with “tax collectors and sinners” (Matt. 9:11). Jesus welcomed and taught tax collectors (Luke 5:29; 15:1). Matthew, one of Jesus’ disciples, was a tax collector (Matt. 10:3). Zacchaeus was a “chief tax collector,” which probably indicates that he was contracted with the Romans to collect taxes over a specific area, and he supervised others who did the actual collecting (Luke 19:2).

Taxes in Scripture encompass both religious obligation to God to meet the funding requirements of the temple and payments to secular authorities, foreign and domestic. Several words and phrases express the concept in the Bible. In the OT these include the following: (1) Ransom was the temple tax commanded by God, based on a census of Israel (Exod. 30:11–16). It resulted in atonement for the taxpayer and avoidance of a plague on Israel. (2) Tribute was a divinely commanded offering in support of the cultic priesthood. The example in Num. 31:28–30 specifically addresses spoils of war. (3) Levy was a monetary assessment of silver and gold imposed by a superior authority (e.g., Pharaoh Necho) to a subjugated one (e.g., Israel) (see 2 Kings 23:33–35). (4) Tax was a compulsory payment to an authority. The example in 2 Chron. 24:6, 9 refers to the aforementioned ransom. A second usage of the underlying Hebrew, appearing in Amos 5:11, refers to taxes on the poor by corrupt leaders in the northern kingdom.

Additionally, four different words in Aramaic, the original language of Ezra, indicate governmental revenues (Ezra 4:13, 20; 6:8; 7:24). These words are variously translated as “taxes,” “tribute,” “duty,” “revenue.” The shades of difference in meaning among them are unclear.

The NT discusses taxes in several passages. The most comprehensive is Matt. 17:24–27, Jesus’ discussion of the temple tax with Peter, ending with the account of the four-drachma coin in the mouth of the caught fish. Here, three of the four NT Greek words for taxes are employed. (1) Didrachmon in v. 24 is the “temple tax” (NIV, NRSV), the OT “ransom to the Lord” defined above. By the first century AD, the amount was fixed at two drachmas, equivalent to wages for two long days of common labor. (2) Telos comes first in the word pair translated “duty and taxes” in v. 25 and is the generic word in the NT for taxes. It also occurs in Rom. 13:7, where it is translated “revenue.” (3) Kēnsos occurs second in the same word pair in v. 25 and refers to the direct poll tax on male adults. It also appears in Mark 12:14; Matt. 22:17–19, both addressing the question of paying taxes to Caesar. (4) The remaining Greek word, phoros, is found in Luke 20:22; 23:2; Rom. 13:6–7. This term refers specifically to a tribute tax paid by a subjugated nation to a superior authority—for example, the tax owed by Israelites to Caesar.

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

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

Old Testament

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Testament

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grief is great sadness or sorrow or the circumstances that produce such; mourning refers to expressions of grief. Grief and mourning are often thought of in conjunction with death, but they may occur with regard to any personal or national tragedy (2 Sam. 13:19), the impending prospect of tragedy (Esther 4:3; Isa. 37:1), or repentance prompted by prophetic word of tragedy, sorrow over sin, or both.

The expressions of mourning in the Bible include weeping (Gen. 23:2), wailing (Esther 4:3; Isa. 15:3; Mark 5:38), tearing clothes and wearing sackcloth (Gen. 37:34; 2 Sam. 3:31), lying on the ground (2 Sam. 13:31), putting dust and ashes on the head or sitting on dust and ashes (Ezek. 27:30), fasting (2 Sam. 3:35; 12:16), singing songs of lament (2 Sam. 1:17–27; 3:32–35), pulling hair out of one’s beard (Ezra 9:3), cutting the hair (Jer. 7:29), uncovering the head (Lev. 10:6), removing sandals (Ezek. 24:17, 23), covering the lips or mouth (Ezek. 24:17, 22; Mic. 3:7), and employing professional mourners (Jer. 9:17; Matt. 9:23; Mark 5:38). Some pagan mourning practices were prohibited, such as slashing the body, cutting patterns into the body (tattooing?), and the somewhat obscure act of making the forehead bald (Lev. 19:28; Deut. 14:1; cf. 1 Kings 18:28).

Thus, grief and mourning were anything but stoic and brief. Grief was expressed both physically and vocally, often loudly, with expressions ranging from inarticulate groaning to poetic compositions in song. Although women may have been prominent among professional mourners, expressing grief was not considered unmasculine. Several times David was a leader in expressing grief. That the expression of grief should be brief, relatively dispassionate, and primarily characteristic of women was a Greek development that entered the church through people such as Augustine, who, for example, felt grieved that he had very briefly grieved the loss of his mother.

Paul’s admonition that believers should not grieve as do those who have no hope (1 Thess. 4:13) should not be construed as a dictum that it is wrong to grieve. The thought of the resurrection is a comfort in, not a replacement for, grief. Even Jesus wept at the death of Lazarus, knowing full well that he would soon resurrect him (John 11:25, 35, 40). Further, saints who have died and gone to heaven lament (Rev. 6:10). Grief is restricted for active-duty priests and once for Ezekiel, but these are clearly special circumstances and illustrate the normalcy of giving expression to grief. Ezekiel was to moan with a groaning for the dead (often misread as groaning silently) when his wife died, but he was not to engage in any mourning rites (Ezek. 24:15–27). This illustrated to Judah the circumstances that they would face, without opportunity to mourn properly for their dead. Ezekiel 8:14 indicts the women of Jerusalem for “mourning for Tammuz,” a pagan ritual involving the cycle of life, death, and rebirth of the Babylonian god Dumuzi.

Songs of lament are common in the OT. David composed a song of lament honoring the deaths of Saul and Jonathan (2 Sam. 1:17–27). After Joab’s unauthorized killing of Abner, David also sang a lament for Abner and required Joab to participate in mourning rituals (3:31–37). David also mourned his own sons: the unnamed son of Bathsheba (12:16–18), Amnon (13:30–33), and Absalom (18:33–19:4). In the case of Bathsheba’s son, David mourned in advance of the boy’s death, which had been prophetically proclaimed through Nathan. As the consequences of his sins continued, he progressively became undone in the mourning of his other sons. Also, funeral songs are used as the form of some prophetic material (Ezek. 19:1–14; 26:17–18; 27:2–9, 25–36; cf. Jer. 22:18; Amos 5:16). Not all laments are funeral songs per se. Compare also the book of Lamentations and the psalms of lament, also known as complaint psalms.

Expressions of grief and mourning were called for as part of repentance, combining both fear of punishment and depth of sorrow over sin (2 Chron. 34:19; Isa. 15:3; Joel 1:13).

(1) The oldest of four sons of Nahor by his concubine Reumah (Gen. 22:24). (2) A town that had belonged to King Hadadezer of Zobah, from which David took a large quantity of bronze after defeating the king (1 Chron. 18:8). Some versions follow the Hebrew text, which has the variant name “Tibhath” (NRSV, NASB, ESV, KJV), while others substitute “Tebah” (NIV, NLT).

The third son of Hosah, a descendant of Merari. He was a Levite assigned to be a gatekeeper after the exile (1 Chron. 26:11).

The tenth month of the Hebrew calendar (December–January) (Esther 2:16).

OT law considered the loss of a tooth or an eye equally serious (Exod. 21:24, 27; Lev. 24:20; Deut. 19:21; Matt. 5:38–39). Perfect, clean, white teeth are a mark of beauty (Song 4:2; 6:6). When nations or people destroy, it is with sharp teeth (Deut. 32:24 [NIV: “fangs”]; Job 29:17; 41:14; Ps. 57:4; Prov. 30:14; Joel 1:6). The psalmist calls upon Yahweh “to break the teeth” of the wicked (Pss. 3:7; 58:6). Hell, described as a place of “weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matt. 8:12; 13:42; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30; Luke 13:28), graphically pictures the suffering reserved for those outside the kingdom of God.

A Hebrew transliteration of an Egyptian place name for an outpost bordering Sinai (see Jer. 2:16; 46:14). The word means “the fortress of Penhase” or “the house of the Nubian.” Penhase was a Theban general who quelled a rebellion in the Nile Delta (eleventh century BC). After the destruction of Jerusalem, a group of Israelites desired to escape to Tahpanhes. Jeremiah counseled against this, warning that Nebuchadnezzar would eventually reach Tahpanhes, and prophesying that if the people remained in the land, God would grant them mercy. However, the Jews did not listen and fled to Egypt, taking Jeremiah with them. It was in Tahpanhes that Jeremiah finished out his prophetic career (Jer. 42:19; 43:7–9; 44:1). Ezekiel also included this city in his oracle against Egypt (Ezek. 30:18 [NRSV, KJV, ESV: “Tehaphnehes”]). The site of the city is associated with Daphnai (Tell Defneh, near Lake Manzaleh in the northeast Delta).

A Judahite, a son of Eshton and the “father” of the city Ir Nahash (1 Chron. 4:12).

The KJV translation of the Hebrew word ’elah in Isa. 6:13. More-recent versions translate the term as “oak” or “terebinth.” See also Plants; Terebinth.

At King Belshazzar’s feast in the book of Daniel an apparitional hand appeared and wrote a mysterious inscription on the wall. According to the Aramaic text, it read mene’ mene’ teqel uparsin (Dan. 5:25). Daniel alone was able to identify God as the source of the message, read the writing, and decipher its significance (Dan. 5:24–28). In the Old Greek version of Daniel, the inscription differs in wording (mene is not repeated), order (mane phares thekel ), position (it comes at the beginning of the story), and interpretation.

As a result of this evidence from ancient versions and the intrinsic difficulty of the Aramaic text, the phrase is a subject of much debate. Scholars have noted that each of the words resembles a unit of weight (cf. the biblical mina and shekel). The Old Greek arranges these in descending order (a prs being a half-mina, and a shekel one-fiftieth of a mina). The phrase may originally have referred to a succession of kings of declining power (beginning with Nebuchadnezzar), in which case Daniel’s interpretation in the biblical (Aramaic) text differs somewhat from the original sense of the riddle. In this scenario, the Aramaic text has changed the order of the terms so that parsin, which sounds like “Persians,” comes last.

A town in the territory of Judah about 7.5 miles south of Bethlehem, perhaps at the modern site of Khirbet et Tuqu’. Tekoa is associated with the Hezronites (1 Chron. 2:24; 4:5), as the son of Hezron (who was Judah’s grandson) was the leader, or “father,” of Tekoa. Jeremiah 6:1 indicates that it was south of Jerusalem. The Greek translation of Josh. 15:59 may refer to Tekoa in association with Bethlehem. Rehoboam included it in a line of defensive fortifications (2 Chron. 11:6).

Tekoa was the birthplace of Ira, one of David’s mighty warriors (2 Sam. 23:26). It is better known as the birthplace of Amos, the shepherd and caretaker of sycamore-fig trees turned prophet to the northern kingdom of Israel (Amos 1:1; 7:14). Tekoa also was the origin of a wise, or skilled, woman whom Joab recruited as part of petitioning David to restore Absalom after he had killed Amnon (2 Sam. 14).

A person from Tekoa, a village south of Bethlehem, including Ira the warrior (2 Sam. 23:26), Amos the prophet (Amos 1:1), and Joab’s wise woman (2 Sam. 14:1–20).

A town “near the Kebar River” where Ezekiel stayed with Babylonian exiles for seven days. The experience seemed deeply moving to him: “I sat among them for seven days—deeply distressed” (Ezek. 3:15). The location of the biblical Tel Aviv and the Kebar River are unknown.

A city of “the people of Eden” whose destruction was alluded to in Sennacherib’s letter to Hezekiah. Sennacherib’s letter serves both to warn and to mock Hezekiah in order to sway him toward surrender and away from faith in God (2 Kings 19:9–13).

A town “near the Kebar River” where Ezekiel stayed with Babylonian exiles for seven days. The experience seemed deeply moving to him: “I sat among them for seven days—deeply distressed” (Ezek. 3:15). The location of the biblical Tel Aviv and the Kebar River are unknown.

In 1992 and 1994 fragments of an inscription were discovered in secondary usage in the Israelite gate complex at Dan. Dating from the ninth century BC, the text is in Aramaic and represents the king of Damascus, whose god was Hadad. He claims responsibility for killing Jehoram of Israel and Ahaziah of the “house of David.” The inscription gives credit for the demise of these kings to the king of Syria, even though the biblical text indicates it was Jehu (2 Kings 9:14–29). This is not unusual for ancient Near Eastern inscriptions; the king of Syria may have thought of Jehu as a vassal. The inscription does mention Jehu son of Omri at the end. While it has been claimed by a minority of scholars that “house of David” should be read as “house of the beloved,” the latter reading does not fit the militaristic context.

One of the Babylonian towns where Judahites settled during the exile (Ezra 2:59; Neh. 7:61). The exiles from these towns came up in order to return to Judah with Nehemiah (Ezra 2:1–2; Neh. 7:6). Upon returning to Israel, some of its residents were unable to prove that they were descended from Israel. The location is unknown, but it probably is south of the city of Babylon, between the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers.

An unknown location in Babylon from which some exiles returned to Judah in 539 BC or soon after, some of whom are listed as being unable to establish their genealogical connections to Israel (Ezra 2:59; Neh. 7:61). The name “Tel Melah,” meaning “salt ruin,” may indicate the kind of place where they lived in Babylon. The geographer Ptolemy identified it as Thelma near the Persian Gulf.

An ancestor of Joshua, he was an Ephraimite, the son of Resheph, and the father of Tahan (1 Chron. 7:25).

A city in southern Judah, perhaps near Edom, where Saul summoned and numbered his troops before attacking the Amal-e-kites (1 Sam. 15:4). The LXX reads “Gilgal,” but this may be an example of the tradition of changing the name of a place to a location more readily associated with the hero. See also Telem.

(1) A Levite gatekeeper, contemporary of Ezra, among those who married foreign women (Ezra 10:24) and then sent them away after the captivity. (2) An alternate form of “Telaim,” a city in southern Judah, near the border with Edom (Josh. 15:24). See also Telaim.

One of the Babylonian towns where Judahites settled during the exile (Ezra 2:59; Neh. 7:61). The exiles from these towns came up in order to return to Judah with Nehemiah (Ezra 2:1–2; Neh. 7:6). Upon returning to Israel, some of its residents were unable to prove that they were descended from Israel. The location is unknown, but it probably is south of the city of Babylon, between the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers.

One of the Babylonian towns where Judahites settled during the exile (Ezra 2:59; Neh. 7:61). The exiles from these towns came up in order to return to Judah with Nehemiah (Ezra 2:1–2; Neh. 7:6). Upon returning to Israel, some of its residents were unable to prove that they were descended from Israel. The location is unknown, but it probably is south of the city of Babylon, between the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers.

(1) A son of Ishmael (Gen. 25:15; 1 Chron. 1:30) who was associated with an oasis city of the same name. (2) An important commerce city/oasis in northern Arabia at the crossroads of three important trade routes (Job 6:19). The city is mentioned by both Isaiah (Isa. 21:14, possibly concerning Tiglath-pileser III) and Jeremiah (Jer. 25:23, perhaps in reference to Nebuchadnezzar). Nabonidus, the last Chaldean or Babylonian king, made the city his headquarters for ten years (553–543 BC) and left his son, Belshazzar, to rule in Babylon in his place (Dan. 5). The oasis is identified as modern Teima, about 220 miles southeast of Aqaba.

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 2:53; Neh. 7:55). 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.

(1) The first of the five sons of Eli-phaz, a grandson of Esau, and a chief among the Edomites (Gen. 36:11; 1 Chron. 1:36). (2) A location in Edom (derived from the personal name?) sometimes but uncertainly identified with modern Tawilan near Petra. It was known as a center of wisdom (Jer. 49:7), and Job’s friend Eliphaz, not to be identified with the earlier person of the same name, was a wise man from Teman (Job 2:11). As a city in Edom, Teman sometimes was the object of judgment oracles (Jer. 49:20; Ezek. 25:13; Amos 1:12; Obad. 9). Habakkuk remembers the march of God up from Teman, perhaps thinking of the wilderness wandering (Hab. 3:3).

The clan name for the descendants of Teman or the inhabitants of Teman (Gen. 36:34; 1 Chron. 1:45). One of Job’s friends, Eliphaz, was a Temanite (Job 2:11). Teman, in the southern area of Edom, had a reputation for wisdom (Jer. 49:7).

A Judahite, the third of four sons born to Ashhur and Naarah (1 Chron. 4:6).

Self-control involves the willingness to submit to the boundaries of nature, society, and family that God places in the world to bring about order and harmony in relationships. The self-restraint of an individual’s thoughts, words, and actions reflects the ordered discipline of God’s creation (Gen. 1–3; 8:22; Prov. 6:6–8). Discipline of the self is essential to live a productive life in community (Prov. 25:28).

“Self-control” is one of the terms that Luke uses to summarize Paul’s message to Felix (Acts 24:25). God’s people must exercise self-control (1 Thess. 5:6; 2 Tim. 1:7; 2 Pet. 1:6). Ultimately, self-control is a gift, a fruit that comes from being in submission to God’s Spirit (Gal. 5:22–23).

Temples have always been the domain and house of the gods throughout the ancient Near East. As the abode of the God of Israel, the Jerusalem temple served the same purpose. The temple played an important role in the social, religious, and political life of ancient Israel. No archaeological remains of the actual temple building exist today; nevertheless, the temple has dominated biblical scholarship. The Jerusalem temple was originally built by Solomon in 953 BC and was destroyed by the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar in 586 BC. After the exile, the temple was rebuilt and then rededicated by Zerubbabel in 515 BC (Ezra). Herod the Great significantly expanded and changed the temple, but it was eventually destroyed by the Romans under the direction of Titus in AD 70.

The biblical text refers to the temple in several ways: temple, house of God/Yahweh, and sanctuary/shrine. These terms all refer to the dwelling or house of God and an area of sacredness. The sources for information on the temple are biblical texts, Josephus, and the Mishnah (tractate Middot). The most detailed accounts of the construction of the Solomonic temple are found in 1 Kings 6–8; 2 Chron. 2–4. In addition to these major sections, there are several references to building activities and repairs to the temple throughout the OT. Another major text is Ezek. 40, but it is debated whether this represents the actual temple or an ideal temple. There are several references in the NT that directly or indirectly refer to functions and specific components of the Temple Mount complex.

Archaeological Investigation

The location of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem has been undisputed. Current scholarly opinion locates the temple on the spot of the current Muslim shrine, the Dome of the Rock. Today the larger enclosed area is referred to as the harem esh-sharif (the noble sanctuary). Explorers in the nineteenth century did not attempt archaeological research of the temple itself, although various explorations focused on recording visible features and conducting soundings along the sides of the Temple Mount. Even after the unification of Jerusalem in 1967, with three major excavations in the city, no archaeological investigation of the temple was conducted. Due to the political and religious variables associated with the Muslim holy sites, there are no foreseeable archaeological investigations. A recent renovation of the Mosque of Omar, located on the southern end of the Temple Mount, removed truckloads of earth. Unfortunately, there was no archaeological supervision of the project and no archaeological excavations of the site were conducted.

In spite of the limited archaeological excavations, several popular accounts of alternate locations of the temple have been proposed. Most of these place the temple somewhere other than the Dome of the Rock, but none of these proposals has garnered scholarly support to rival the current location.

First Temple: Temple of Solomon

Throughout the ancient Near East, temples served as monumental edifices that provided divine legitimacy for the king or dynasty. While temples should be considered part of the religious sphere of society, their construction, maintenance, and associated activities are interlinked with the political sphere. The construction of the temple in Jerusalem is also linked to state formation by the Israelites. The Solomonic temple ushered in a new period of religious activity among the ancient Israelites. Previously, Israel had worshiped at various shrines and sanctuaries, and its central religious practice was associated with the tabernacle. With the establishment of the monarchy, dynastic kingship and centralized authority were created. Although the biblical text credits Solomon as the Israelite king who built the temple, the project was initiated under David. David united the Israelite tribes, captured Jerusalem and made it the capital of the kingdom, and built a royal palace. He made Jerusalem the political capital but also the religious center when he brought the holy ark, the visible symbol of Yahweh’s presence, to Jerusalem (2 Sam. 5–6). David intended to build Yahweh a permanent dwelling (2 Sam. 7:2).

Location. The biblical text preserves multiple traditions and accounts of the location and acquisition of land for the temple. In the ancient world the city temple was commonly located on the acropolis (highest point) of the city. The temple is located on the highest point of a ridge where the OT city of Jerusalem is located (Jebusite city, later the City of David). There are two accounts of the purchase of the land: the threshing floors of Araunah (2 Sam. 24:18–25) and of Ornan (1 Chron. 21:15–30; 2 Chron. 3:1 [here the NIV supplies “Araunah,” but see, e.g., the NET, NASB, ESV]). It is possible that Araunah and Ornan were kin, but most likely they are the same person, with Samuel and Chronicles using variant names. However, the two accounts disagree further on the amount paid for the land: fifty silver shekels (2 Sam. 24:24) and six hundred shekels of gold (1 Chron. 21:25). One theory explains this discrepancy as arising from two separate transactions. First, David purchased the threshing floor to build an altar to Yahweh, and he later purchased the whole mountain to build a temple. Later tradition associates the hill where David built an altar with the location where earlier Abraham built an altar to sacrifice Isaac (Mount Moriah).

Construction and dimensions. Solomon started to build during the fourth year of his reign (2 Chron. 3:1), and construction lasted for seven years. The plan of the temple was revealed to Solomon during a night in the sanctuary at Gibeon (2 Chron. 1:7–13). The king obtained building materials, specifically cedar from Lebanon (2 Chron. 2:3–10), and construction and design expertise from Phoenician artisans (1 Kings 7:13–14, 45). The Solomonic temple consisted of a tripartite plan similar to other temples in Syro-Palestine during this period. There are two accounts for the construction and dedication of the first temple (1 Kings 6–8; 2 Chron. 3–7). Both accounts offer similar descriptions but there are some differences in measurements. Most scholars account for these differences by viewing the dimensions in the book of Chronicles as reflecting the temple measurements after Hezekiah’s repair and rebuilding projects.

The basic plan was a rectangle, 70 cubits long (120 ft. 7 in.) and 20 cubits wide (34 ft. 5 in.) on a straight axis facing east; the height was 30 cubits (51 ft. 7 in.). These measurements refer to the inside dimensions (1 cubit = 20.67 in.). The three distinct architectural units formed three distinct rooms where various functions were performed and also reflected levels of holiness. The three units were the ’ulam (“porch” or “vestibule”), the hekal (“cella” or “nave”), and the debir (the innermost sanctuary, the most holy place). In the biblical accounts the whole building is called the “house [bayit] of the Lord,” and the word “temple” is used for the hekal. There was a three-story structure built around the sides and back of the temple (see below).

The porch was 10 cubits (17 ft. 2 in.) by 20 cubits (34 ft. 5 in.). The account in Kings does not provide its height; the account in Chronicles gives the height as 120 cubits. In its description and measurements in the biblical text, the porch is considered separate from the temple (bayit, house). The porch contained two pillars of bronze: yakin (“he will establish”) on the right side and bo’az (“in strength”) on the left (see Boaz; Jakin). The pillars were bronze, 18 cubits (35 cubits in Chronicles) in height, with elaborate double capitals. The bottom capital was 5 cubits, round in shape, and surrounded by nets with pomegranates. Above this was another capital, 4 cubits high, shaped like a lily.

The hekal was 40 cubits long and 20 cubits wide and was the only part with windows (1 Kings 6:4). The debir was a cube, 20 cubits per side. The debir is also called the “holy of holies.” The difference in height (10 cubits shorter than the hekal  ) is due to the rise in the bedrock. This measurement is confirmed today in the interior of the Dome of the Rock.

The walls of the house (hekal and debir) were built of whole stones dressed in the quarry, as “no hammer, chisel or any other iron tool was heard at the temple site while it was being built” (1 Kings 6:7). The roof was made of cedar wood (1 Kings 6:10), with crossbeams and intersecting boards. The stone walls were covered from ground to ceiling with boards of cedar wood, and the floor was made of cypress wood, covered with gold (1 Kings 6:30). The wood had carved engravings of cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers. The hekal and the debir were separated by a partition made of olive wood.

The three-story structure surrounding the temple was constructed of cedar wood. Each story was 5 cubits. The width of the first floor was 5 cubits, the middle 6 cubits, and the top 7 cubits. This structure was entered from the right side of the temple, and the floors were connected by openings with ladders. This structure formed chambers and storage for the activities of the priests.

In front of the temple was a courtyard surrounded by a wall. Inside the courtyard was a great bronze basin (known as “the Sea”). This basin rested on the backs of twelve bronze oxen. Ten smaller basins in groups of five were set on elaborate wheeled stands. A large altar also was located in this courtyard.

In the holy of holies stood two large cherubim of olive wood covered with gold. They were 10 cubits in height, with a wingspan of 10 cubits. These cherubim stood over the ark of the covenant. In the hekal were the golden altar, the golden table, and ten lampstands.

History. From Solomon to Zedekiah, the temple was used for political and religious power shifts. Kings of Israel raided the temple treasury to pay off invaders, closed the temple, or placed idols in the temple in periods of apostasy. During periods of reform they repaired and rebuilt the temple and its furnishings.

Under Rehoboam’s reign, Shishak king of Egypt ransacked the temple and removed all its treasures (1 Kings 14:25–28; 2 Chron. 12:9). Asa and his father, Abijah, added to the treasure of the temple with silver, gold, and other vessels (2 Chron. 15:18) but used these to pay Ben-Hadad of Syria to help him fight Baasha king of Israel (16:2–3). Asa’s son Jehoshaphat (2 Chron. 17) ruled during a time of prosperity and reform. It was under his rule that the court in front of the temple probably was enlarged (20:5). The sons of Athaliah broke into the temple and worshiped Baal. During the reign of Amaziah the temple was plundered by Jehoash king of Israel (2 Chron. 25). Uzziah ruled for a long period of prosperity (787–736 BC) but attempted to burn incense on the altar in the hekal, a ritual kept solely for the priests. A later king, Jotham, built the Upper Gate of the house of Yahweh (2 Kings 15:35; 2 Chron. 27:3). Jotham’s son Ahaz took the silver and gold from the temple and sent it as a present to the king of Assyria. He moved and changed various vessels of the temple and shut its doors (2 Chron. 28:24).

Hezekiah son of Ahaz ruled during a time of prosperity and revival. He reopened the temple doors (2 Chron. 29), cleaned out the temple, and created a 500-cubit-square mount around the temple. Hezekiah conducted many building projects in Jerusalem and reforms throughout the land. He also “stripped off the gold with which he had covered the doors and doorposts of the temple of the Lord” to pay a ransom to Sennacherib king of Assyria (2 Kings 18:16). Due to his building activities, most scholars attribute major changes to the temple to Hezekiah’s reign. The differences in the temple descriptions in Kings and Chronicles probably reflect two different periods of history concerning the temple (e.g., Kings represents the temple during the period of Solomon, while Chronicles represents the changes to the temple by Hezekiah). Manasseh, Hezekiah’s son, undid the work of his father by building altars in the temple.

The last resurgence of the temple in the life of the people of Israel was under Josiah. He instigated a reform throughout the land and a cleansing of the temple. Hilkiah the high priest found a copy of the “Book of the Law” (2 Kings 22:8). After a reading of the law in the public square, a collection was taken from the people to be given to workers for temple repair. The Babylonians took some of the temple treasure (2 Chron. 36:7) under the rule of Jehoiakim. The last two kings of Judah, Jehoiachin and Zedekiah, also lost temple treasure to Babylon, and eventually the temple was destroyed during the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BC (2 Chron. 36).

Second Temple: Zerubbabel and the Temple of Herod the Great

Zerubbabel’s temple. Solomon’s temple was rebuilt by the Jews who returned from exile under the decree of the Persian king Darius (Ezra 6:1–5). The temple was built under the direction of the governor Zerubbabel with the support of the prophets Haggai and Zechariah (Ezra 6:13–18) and was dedicated in 515 BC. This would have been a poorer temple due to the poverty of the inhabitants of Judah. During the Hasmonean period (152–37 BC) a platform and a fortress were constructed. Not much is known about the temple during this period. It would be greatly eclipsed by the work of Herod the Great.

Temple of Herod the Great. Herod invested heavily in building projects throughout his kingdom. He was keen on bringing Hellenistic culture to the Jews but also on upholding traditional Jewish religious practices, especially when it came to the temple. Just as the first temple mimicked the religious architecture of the ancient Near East, the second temple reflected the massive sacred architecture of the classical world. John 2:20 indicates that thus far it had taken forty-six years (beyond Herod’s life) to build. Herod could not alter the dimensions of the temple, but he was able to make additions to the outside, alter its outer furnishings, and expand the compound and platform to match the grandeur of Greco-Roman temples. Today scholars refer to all these buildings and the temple as the Temple Mount complex.

Herod expanded the space of the Temple Mount by building a “box” around the mountain. This was a massive wall with varying height due to the topography. This wall is still visible today, especially the current religious site of the Western Wall. This construction allowed for a level platform with various buildings and plazas on the top. The leveling was done by filling in the gaps and building subterranean arches in low areas. One of these areas is located on the southeast corner (the underground arched supports are erroneously called “Solomon’s Stables” today). The whole area was surrounded by a colonnaded portico (Solomon’s Colonnade [John 10:23; Acts 3:11; 5:12]). On the northwest corner was the Antonia Fortress (Acts 21:35), and the southern end of the complex contained the Royal Stoa, a basilica-style building (four rows of forty columns) that housed the Sanhedrin and had other religious and political functions (Luke 22:66).

This complex became the religious and political center of the city of Jerusalem, and Herod built many auxiliary components. Several entrances and bridges from the Upper City were built. The public entered the complex from the south. A southern complex consisting of monumental stairs (210 feet wide) and entrance and exit gates (Double and Triple Gates) took pedestrians from the outside up through underground tunnels to the top of the temple compound. These stairs became an area for public forums. In addition, several shops (Mark 11:15–17) were built around the complex, as well as a large bathhouse for ritual cleansing. In order to facilitate the many sacrifices, Herod built a complex hydrologic system that brought water into the city. This was accomplished by various aqueducts and storage pools. The Temple Mount had many cisterns and a new pool on the northeast end of the Temple Mount complex, the Pool of Israel. Although Herod could not alter the dimensions of the temple itself, he was able to enlarge the facade, added storage chambers and auxiliary buildings, build a second story above the temple, and construct several courtyards and various buildings associated with them. In keeping with the earlier tripartite level of holiness, these additional temple buildings and courtyards retained the same linear degree of holiness and exclusion.

Josephus called Herod’s temple “a structure more noteworthy than any under the sun” (Ant. 15.412). Herod built a new monumental facade in front of the existing temple and added a second story. Herod’s temple measured 100 cubits (172 ft.) in all three dimensions. It stood on top of a foundation that gave it added height. It had two stories, each one 45 cubits (77.5 ft.) in height. On the roof was a parapet, 3 cubits in height, which contained golden spikes, 1 cubit in height, to prevent birds from perching on the roof’s edge. The temple was decorated with gold overlay. The opening between the ’ulam (“porch”) and the sanctuary was 20 cubits high and 10 cubits wide (34 ft. by 17 ft.). There were two sets of double folding doors. The sanctuary contained the golden menorah, the table of the bread of the Presence, and the altar of incense. Between the sanctuary and the holy of holies was a large tapestry (veil) (Matt. 27:51; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45). The holy of holies had gold plating on its walls. Around the temple were thirty-eight cells built in three stories (m. Mid. 4:3–4). All of the cells were interconnected by openings between adjoining cells and by one in the ceiling to reach the cell above. To the north, between the outer wall of the temple and the cells, was an inner stairway with access to the top of the temple and the upper chamber (second story of the temple). The upper chamber allowed priests to service the holy of holies. They would be suspended in baskets, covered on three sides, through openings in the floor to clean the gold overlay in the holy of holies.

The temple courtyard was surrounded by various gates and buildings. These were specific entrances and buildings that the priests used for the various functions of the sacrifices and offerings (Mark 13:1–2). These included the Kindling Gate, Wood Chamber, Gate of the Firstlings, Golah Chamber, Water Gate, Chamber of the Hearth, Gate of Jeconiah, Rinsing Chamber, Gate of the Offering-Women, Salt-Parva Chamber, and Gate of the Flame-Singers. In front of the temple were two narrow courts: the court of the priests to the west and the court of the Israelites (men) to the east. Inside the temple court was the altar of burnt offering. During the Second Temple period it was a stationary, square-shaped altar constructed of unhewn stones. According to the Mishnah (m. Mid. 3:1), this altar was 32 cubits square at the base and about 10 cubits in height. A ramp 32 cubits long, also built of unhewn stones, led the priests up to the altar from the south. A laver, the great bronze basin known as “the Sea,” stood west of the altar between the altar and the temple porch (’ulam) for the washing of hands and feet. North of the altar was the place of slaughtering.

The court of the women, 135 cubits square, was in front of the temple to the east. This court had four smaller courts, one at each corner. Women could enter the temple only as far as this court. It was surrounded by a colonnade. Inside these porches (porticoes) were thirteen collection boxes for money. This is where Jesus saw the poor widow donating two copper coins (Luke 21:1–3). The court had four large lampstands nearly half the height of the temple. The Mishnah states that each of the corner chambers was 40 cubits square and roofless. The central area was exposed to the sky, with a portico around each courtyard—typical of Mediterranean buildings. The chamber to the immediate right of the court’s entrance (northeast) was the chamber of the woodshed, where priests examined logs for impurities (e.g., parasites). To the left (southeast) was the chamber of the Nazirites. To the northwest was the chamber of the lepers. A leper who had been healed brought an offering and then bathed in this chamber before coming to the priests for the performance of rituals. In the southwest corner was the chamber of the house of oil. Between the court of the women and the temple court was the Nicanor Gate. Fifteen semicircular steps led up to this gate. It was on these steps that the Levites sang the fifteen Psalms of Ascent (Pss. 120–134).

Surrounding the temple and the court of the women was a balustrade or railing that served as a boundary beyond which no Gentile could enter. Outside this boundary was the court of the Gentiles (see John 12:20–22; Acts 21:27–29). Archaeologists have found an inscription that forbids Gentiles, upon pain of death, to enter any farther. Herod’s temple was destroyed in AD 70. The Temple Mount continued to be used and considered sacred, as Roman temples, Crusader churches, and Muslim shrines marked the sacredness of the location.

Role of the Temple

The temple was the dwelling place of Yahweh. It was the domain of the religious leaders, priests, and Levites. It also represented the relationship/covenant between God and the nation of Israel. Various kings used the temple for their political maneuvering and attempts to shift the religious worship of the nation. The temple was the visible presence of God and embodied the political and religious aspirations of the people. The temple sat on top of a sacred mountain.

During turbulent political times the temple was central to God’s protection and judgment. From the Babylonian and Roman periods, two texts spoke of a future temple. Ezekiel’s vision saw a futuristic temple measuring 500 cubits square surrounded by a massive court measuring 3,000 cubits square (Ezek. 40:1–47:12). Among the DSS, the Temple Scroll also talks about a rebuilt temple. Today many Christians and Jews look to a future rebuilding of the temple.

In English, a distinction between the words “temptation,” “test,” and “trial” (or “tribulation”) seems apparent. However, the biblical Greek noun peirasmos and verb peirazō translate these nouns and their related verbs, leaving context alone to determine meaning. In the understanding of the Scripture, temptation relates directly to test and trial.

Negatively, English Bibles choose “temptation” and “tempt” as the fitting translation for peirasmos and peirazō respectively. The devil, or Satan, is the origin; the purpose is to encourage sin and devastate human relationship with God (Matt. 4:1 pars.; 1 Cor. 7:5; Gal. 6:1; 1 Tim. 6:9; James 1:13). Satan personifies this purpose as the tempter (Matt. 4:3; 1 Thess. 3:5).

Positively, the English word “test” seems fitting. God tests his people to reveal the quality of their faith commitment (Gen. 22:1; Exod. 15:25; Judg. 2:22; Gal. 4:14). When God tests his enemies, it results in a hardening of their hearts (Exod. 14:4). When God tests his own people, it may look like judgment (Isa. 6:9–10; cf. Mark 6:52; Heb. 3:8; 4:7). The NT sees a direct link between the words peirazō and dokimazō (“to test, prove, approve”) and uses one to explain the other (2 Cor. 13:5–7; James 1:2–3, 12).

Neutrally, “trial” (or “tribulation”) translates the meaning. People may face trials in their Christian walk (Acts 20:19; 2 Cor. 8:2; James 1:2, 12; 1 Pet. 1:6) that may or may not lead to sin (Matt. 26:41; cf. Dan. 12:10). The sixth petition of the Lord’s Prayer (Matt. 6:13 // Luke 11:4) presupposes the understanding that God is sovereign over all human circumstances and therefore has the power to protect from trials that may lead to temptation and fall. Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane follows the same supposition (Mark 14:38).

This interconnectedness in the biblical understanding between temptation, test, and trial helps to explain some inherently difficult texts. There can be no sharp distinction made between temptation and test; God may use someone’s tribulation as a test to affirm faith, while Satan uses the same as an avenue for temptation to commit sin. A prime OT example of such interconnectedness is the parallel texts in 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles that describe David as both tested by God (2 Sam. 24:1) and tempted by Satan (1 Chron. 21:1) in regard to taking a census of Israel.

When humans tempt/test God, they provoke him to prove his power (Exod. 17:1–7) by acting as if he does not exist (Ps. 14:1). God’s firm prohibition against this (Deut. 6:13–16) exposes it as a violation of his relationship with humans (Matt. 4:7; Acts 5:9; 15:10).

In English, a distinction between the words “temptation,” “test,” and “trial” (or “tribulation”) seems apparent. However, the biblical Greek noun peirasmos and verb peirazō translate these nouns and their related verbs, leaving context alone to determine meaning. In the understanding of the Scripture, temptation relates directly to test and trial.

Negatively, English Bibles choose “temptation” and “tempt” as the fitting translation for peirasmos and peirazō respectively. The devil, or Satan, is the origin; the purpose is to encourage sin and devastate human relationship with God (Matt. 4:1 pars.; 1 Cor. 7:5; Gal. 6:1; 1 Tim. 6:9; James 1:13). Satan personifies this purpose as the tempter (Matt. 4:3; 1 Thess. 3:5).

Positively, the English word “test” seems fitting. God tests his people to reveal the quality of their faith commitment (Gen. 22:1; Exod. 15:25; Judg. 2:22; Gal. 4:14). When God tests his enemies, it results in a hardening of their hearts (Exod. 14:4). When God tests his own people, it may look like judgment (Isa. 6:9–10; cf. Mark 6:52; Heb. 3:8; 4:7). The NT sees a direct link between the words peirazō and dokimazō (“to test, prove, approve”) and uses one to explain the other (2 Cor. 13:5–7; James 1:2–3, 12).

Neutrally, “trial” (or “tribulation”) translates the meaning. People may face trials in their Christian walk (Acts 20:19; 2 Cor. 8:2; James 1:2, 12; 1 Pet. 1:6) that may or may not lead to sin (Matt. 26:41; cf. Dan. 12:10). The sixth petition of the Lord’s Prayer (Matt. 6:13 // Luke 11:4) presupposes the understanding that God is sovereign over all human circumstances and therefore has the power to protect from trials that may lead to temptation and fall. Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane follows the same supposition (Mark 14:38).

This interconnectedness in the biblical understanding between temptation, test, and trial helps to explain some inherently difficult texts. There can be no sharp distinction made between temptation and test; God may use someone’s tribulation as a test to affirm faith, while Satan uses the same as an avenue for temptation to commit sin. A prime OT example of such interconnectedness is the parallel texts in 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles that describe David as both tested by God (2 Sam. 24:1) and tempted by Satan (1 Chron. 21:1) in regard to taking a census of Israel.

When humans tempt/test God, they provoke him to prove his power (Exod. 17:1–7) by acting as if he does not exist (Ps. 14:1). God’s firm prohibition against this (Deut. 6:13–16) exposes it as a violation of his relationship with humans (Matt. 4:7; Acts 5:9; 15:10).

The most focused narrative of Jesus’ temptation follows his baptism, but the Gospels have not isolated Jesus’ temptations to this one event. Rather, as Mark 8:33; Luke 22:28, and other texts indicate, Jesus knew temptations throughout his ministry (cf. Heb. 2:18; 4:15). References in John’s Gospel, which has no account of Jesus’ temptation in the desert, suggest the same (John 6:15; 7:1–4).

All three Synoptic Gospels place the temptation narrative immediately following Jesus’ baptism. Discussions of whether this event was actual or merely visual, one that Jesus described to his disciples or one that they created from miscellaneous sayings after Jesus’ death to parallel Deut. 8:2, will undoubtedly continue. As the Synoptics recount the event, Mark reduces it to one verse (Mark 1:13), whereas Matthew and Luke give full accounts, delineating in three acts the struggle between Jesus and Satan. Matthew and Luke recount these acts in a different sequence, possibly due to Luke’s interest in Jerusalem and the temple or to his desire to use Ps. 106 as his outline (manna, golden calf, testing God [cf. Luke 4:1–13]). Matthew portrays a progression climaxing in a display of Satan’s true character, after which Jesus ends Satan’s attack and sends him away with a clarifying quote from Deut. 6:13: “Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only” (Matt. 4:1–11). Opposite the first Adam, who gave in to the temptation to stop trusting God, the second Adam, Jesus, conquered his temptation with an affirmation that worship of God should remain undivided.

The placement of Jesus’ temptation at the outset of his ministry, immediately following his baptism, speaks to the significance of the event. All three Synoptics emphasize that God’s Spirit led Jesus to the desert to be tempted by the devil. There is no sharp distinction between testing and temptation; God uses Satan’s temptation to test Jesus. The desert setting as the preparatory proving ground for extraordinary usability in God’s kingdom follows the general wilderness motif that runs through Scripture (e.g., Abraham, Moses, Israel) and places Jesus squarely in the center of God’s salvation history. Jesus fulfills God’s messianic promise.

Introducing two of the three temptations by an affirmation of Jesus’ divine sonship gives the event a strong messianic character (Satan’s statements are better understood as affirmations [“Since you are the Son of God . . .”] than as questions [“If you are the Son of God . . .”]). Since Jesus knows that he is the Son of God, he is tempted to disobey for his own benefit (cf. Gen. 3:4–6).

No reader familiar with the stories of the OT can miss the way Jesus’ temptations parallel major OT events. Not only does the devil try to lure Jesus to satisfy his personal needs by a misuse of his power, as becomes obvious from Jesus’ answer quoting Deut. 8:3, but also he entices Jesus to display a power that replicates God’s manna miracle in the desert. Furthermore, the connection between this first temptation to eat what he is not supposed to eat and the original temptation to eat the forbidden fruit (Gen. 3) seems too obvious to miss.

Jesus’ second temptation in Matthew (Luke’s third) portrays Satan bringing Jesus to the highest point of the temple to overlook Kidron Valley, where a fall meant certain death. From here, the devil quotes Ps. 91:11–12, giving scriptural basis for his trap. The symbolic character of this setting proves powerful. Satan challenges Jesus to test God’s faithfulness to his word in the context of the temple. If Jesus cannot trust God’s promise to protect his people even in the temple, then his very mission proves void. Again, the reference to the original temptation, Satan (mis)quoting God in God’s own setting, sets the stage for the portrayal of Jesus’ answer. Unlike the first Adam, Jesus unravels Satan’s scheme by exposing the mistake of confusing God’s promise to protect those who stumble and fall with a deliberate act designed to force God’s hand. Such would be to test (tempt) God, which Scripture explicitly forbids (Deut. 6:16). Whether Jesus quoting Deut. 6:16 speaks directly to his own self-understanding is uncertain but unlikely.

Matthew ends his temptation account with Jesus on a high mountain, overlooking the kingdoms of the world, where Satan offers world authority in exchange for Jesus’ worship. There is no reflection on whether these kingdoms were Satan’s to give, and no explicit naming of Jesus as God’s Son (although a subtle reference to Ps. 2 is likely to echo in the reader’s mind [see Matt. 3:17]). Matthew’s reference to a mountain (Matt. 4:8), which Luke does not mention (Luke 4:5), corresponds to his mountain motif and functions here to parallel the location of Jesus’ discipleship commission to bring God’s kingdom to all nations (Matt. 28:16–20), causing them to transfer their worship to God. Rather than worshiping Satan, Jesus conquers Satan’s temptations and, as the second Adam, brings the nations back to the worship of God (Matt. 4:10).

In English, a distinction between the words “temptation,” “test,” and “trial” (or “tribulation”) seems apparent. However, the biblical Greek noun peirasmos and verb peirazō translate these nouns and their related verbs, leaving context alone to determine meaning. In the understanding of the Scripture, temptation relates directly to test and trial.

Negatively, English Bibles choose “temptation” and “tempt” as the fitting translation for peirasmos and peirazō respectively. The devil, or Satan, is the origin; the purpose is to encourage sin and devastate human relationship with God (Matt. 4:1 pars.; 1 Cor. 7:5; Gal. 6:1; 1 Tim. 6:9; James 1:13). Satan personifies this purpose as the tempter (Matt. 4:3; 1 Thess. 3:5).

Positively, the English word “test” seems fitting. God tests his people to reveal the quality of their faith commitment (Gen. 22:1; Exod. 15:25; Judg. 2:22; Gal. 4:14). When God tests his enemies, it results in a hardening of their hearts (Exod. 14:4). When God tests his own people, it may look like judgment (Isa. 6:9–10; cf. Mark 6:52; Heb. 3:8; 4:7). The NT sees a direct link between the words peirazō and dokimazō (“to test, prove, approve”) and uses one to explain the other (2 Cor. 13:5–7; James 1:2–3, 12).

Neutrally, “trial” (or “tribulation”) translates the meaning. People may face trials in their Christian walk (Acts 20:19; 2 Cor. 8:2; James 1:2, 12; 1 Pet. 1:6) that may or may not lead to sin (Matt. 26:41; cf. Dan. 12:10). The sixth petition of the Lord’s Prayer (Matt. 6:13 // Luke 11:4) presupposes the understanding that God is sovereign over all human circumstances and therefore has the power to protect from trials that may lead to temptation and fall. Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane follows the same supposition (Mark 14:38).

This interconnectedness in the biblical understanding between temptation, test, and trial helps to explain some inherently difficult texts. There can be no sharp distinction made between temptation and test; God may use someone’s tribulation as a test to affirm faith, while Satan uses the same as an avenue for temptation to commit sin. A prime OT example of such interconnectedness is the parallel texts in 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles that describe David as both tested by God (2 Sam. 24:1) and tempted by Satan (1 Chron. 21:1) in regard to taking a census of Israel.

When humans tempt/test God, they provoke him to prove his power (Exod. 17:1–7) by acting as if he does not exist (Ps. 14:1). God’s firm prohibition against this (Deut. 6:13–16) exposes it as a violation of his relationship with humans (Matt. 4:7; Acts 5:9; 15:10).

In English, a distinction between the words “temptation,” “test,” and “trial” (or “tribulation”) seems apparent. However, the biblical Greek noun peirasmos and verb peirazō translate these nouns and their related verbs, leaving context alone to determine meaning. In the understanding of the Scripture, temptation relates directly to test and trial.

Negatively, English Bibles choose “temptation” and “tempt” as the fitting translation for peirasmos and peirazō respectively. The devil, or Satan, is the origin; the purpose is to encourage sin and devastate human relationship with God (Matt. 4:1 pars.; 1 Cor. 7:5; Gal. 6:1; 1 Tim. 6:9; James 1:13). Satan personifies this purpose as the tempter (Matt. 4:3; 1 Thess. 3:5).

Positively, the English word “test” seems fitting. God tests his people to reveal the quality of their faith commitment (Gen. 22:1; Exod. 15:25; Judg. 2:22; Gal. 4:14). When God tests his enemies, it results in a hardening of their hearts (Exod. 14:4). When God tests his own people, it may look like judgment (Isa. 6:9–10; cf. Mark 6:52; Heb. 3:8; 4:7). The NT sees a direct link between the words peirazō and dokimazō (“to test, prove, approve”) and uses one to explain the other (2 Cor. 13:5–7; James 1:2–3, 12).

Neutrally, “trial” (or “tribulation”) translates the meaning. People may face trials in their Christian walk (Acts 20:19; 2 Cor. 8:2; James 1:2, 12; 1 Pet. 1:6) that may or may not lead to sin (Matt. 26:41; cf. Dan. 12:10). The sixth petition of the Lord’s Prayer (Matt. 6:13 // Luke 11:4) presupposes the understanding that God is sovereign over all human circumstances and therefore has the power to protect from trials that may lead to temptation and fall. Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane follows the same supposition (Mark 14:38).

This interconnectedness in the biblical understanding between temptation, test, and trial helps to explain some inherently difficult texts. There can be no sharp distinction made between temptation and test; God may use someone’s tribulation as a test to affirm faith, while Satan uses the same as an avenue for temptation to commit sin. A prime OT example of such interconnectedness is the parallel texts in 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles that describe David as both tested by God (2 Sam. 24:1) and tempted by Satan (1 Chron. 21:1) in regard to taking a census of Israel.

When humans tempt/test God, they provoke him to prove his power (Exod. 17:1–7) by acting as if he does not exist (Ps. 14:1). God’s firm prohibition against this (Deut. 6:13–16) exposes it as a violation of his relationship with humans (Matt. 4:7; Acts 5:9; 15:10).

The Ten Commandments are also identified as the Decalogue, meaning the “Ten Words.” These commands are part of the Bible’s legal literature revealed by God to his people Israel. They are the words of the covenant (Exod. 34:28) and define Yahweh’s covenant relationship with Israel. Some biblical laws are conditional and written in the style of case law, which employs an “if . . . then” personalized format (most of Exod. 21:2–22:17; Deut. 21:18–19; 22:6–9; 23:21–25; 24:10–12). Other laws are stated in absolute terms: “you shall . . .” or “you shall not . . .” (Exod. 22:18–23:19). The latter, second-person format characterizes the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:1–17; Deut. 5:6–21).

The Ten Commandments were revealed at Mount Sinai after the exodus from Egypt and prior to the conquest of the land (Exod. 20:1–17). These laws were restated with some variation to a second generation of Israelites approximately thirty-eight years later in Moab, east of the Jordan River (Deut. 5:1–5). Because the postexodus generation refused to believe God and enter the land, they experienced the wrath of God, which brought their demise over a thirty-eight-year period. God then renewed his covenant with the succeeding generation and made preparations for them to enter the promised land (Deut. 2).

The Ten Commandments are prefaced with a staggering manifestation of God (Exod. 19) that accentuates his awesome character. This theophany revealed the transcendent God, who speaks his word to his people from heaven as the Great King. At this point in redemptive history, Israel was established as an independent nation, and the mediatorial role of Moses was confirmed (Exod. 19:9). The declaration of divine law does not mean the absence of grace. The grace of redemption in the exodus preceded the statement of law at Sinai. In both Exodus and Deuteronomy, the Decalogue is prefaced by God’s statement: “I am the Lord your God” (Exod. 20:2; Deut. 5:6) to underscore the importance of relationship.

In Deuteronomy, the Ten Commandments function within the overall suzerainty treaty structure used by Moses to organize the book. This structure is common in the ancient Near East, and the biblical material bears some similarity to Hittite treaties. In suzerain treaties, the servants (vassals) are obligated to fulfill the will of the king (suzerain), which is reflected in Deut. 4:44–11:32. As in Exodus, the Decalogue of Deuteronomy (5:6–21) is a summary of the will of God.

The Decalogue contains mainly negative commands. There are two positive commands, those enjoining remembrance of the Sabbath (Exod. 20:8; Deut. 5:12) and honor for parents (Exod. 20:12; Deut. 5:16). The commands vary in length, style, and content. Some commands include motivational or explanatory statements. The first four commands of the Decalogue refer to humans’ relationship with God, and the remaining six refer to humans’ relationships with one another, especially with fellow covenant partners.

The Decalogue is the basis for understanding all other OT laws. The prophets used the Ten Commandments as a basis of appeal to the nation. Often, the prophetic message of the Major Prophets and the Minor Prophets is an exposition of Israel’s failure to conform to the will of its Great King declared in the law along with an appeal to return to his gracious ways.

The KJV uses “tenderhearted” in 2 Chron. 13:7 to translate the Hebrew phrase rak-lebab, meaning “weak of heart, timid” (NIV: “indecisive”), and in Eph. 4:32 to translate the Greek word eusplanchnos, meaning “compassionate.”

In Exod. 26:17, 19; 36:22, 24 some versions (KJV, NASB, ESV) use “tenon” to translate the Hebrew word yad (“hand”), employed in these verses to indicate projections made to fit into a mortise or socket to create a joint. The NIV uses “projection,” and the NRSV uses “peg.”

In the ancient Near East, tents were used as shelters, particularly for nomadic peoples (Gen. 13:5, 18), seminomadic herders (Song 1:8), wealthy travelers or caravans, and military encampments (2 Kings 7:5–8). Tent coverings could be made of fabric (often woven from goat hair [e.g., Exod. 26:7]) or animal skins. Poles, pegs, and ropes were used to raise the tent and hold it in place (Isa. 33:20; 54:2). Tents were used both as dwellings (Gen. 4:20) and as meeting or worship spaces (2 Sam. 6:17). The term “tabernacle” also refers to a tent structure (e.g., Job 18:6 KJV), especially to the tent God inhabited from the time of the exodus until Solomon built him a more permanent dwelling (see Tabernacle, Tent of Meeting). A tent is used as a metaphor for the sky or the heavens (Pss. 19:4; 104:2; Isa. 40:22) and often symbolizes protection or habitation (Job 18:14; 22:23; Ps. 61:4). In the NT, the image of a tent is used figuratively of human flesh and earthly existence (2 Cor. 5:1–4; 2 Pet. 1:13; cf. John 1:14; see also Shekinah). Paul was a tentmaker by trade, as were Priscilla and Aquila (Acts 18:2–3). See also Pavilion.

“Tabernacle” in Hebrew (mishkan) is a general word for a tent or a dwelling. In the Pentateuch particularly, “tabernacle” most often refers to the special dwelling place of God among the Hebrew people during their wandering through the wilderness. The tabernacle was the abode of God’s glory before the building of Solomon’s temple in Jerusalem. The detailed description of the tabernacle and its construction comprise more than one-third of the book of Exodus (chaps. 25–40), signifying its theological importance to the life of God’s people before the forming of the nation-state of Israel.

The final biblical description of the tabernacle was committed to writing probably during the period of Israel’s exile in Babylon (587–537 BC). The exile of the Israelites was a time of spiritual wilderness in which Israel was a people bereft of their sanctuary, seemingly bereft of God’s presence. The vivid descriptions of the tabernacle in the Pentateuch reflect both nostalgia for the temple and identification with the wilderness generation. This experience likely provided the impetus for writing and preserving oral and written traditions about the tabernacle. The descriptions of the wilderness sanctuary in the texts of the OT enabled a vivid re-creation of the tabernacle in the mind’s eye.

The detailed command of God to build the tabernacle in Exod. 25–30 is part of a larger dramatic narrative. While Moses is on the mountain of God receiving the instructions for the tabernacle, the Hebrews have embarked on a festival of revelry and worship, offering sacrifices to a golden calf, constructed during Moses’ absence (32:1–19). Moses is furious and smashes the tablets of the Ten Commandments on the ground, and yet he returns to the mountain to intercede for the people. God punishes the people with a plague but does not destroy or abandon them completely, for “the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness” (34:6) renews covenant with the people, and Moses again returns from the mountain with the Ten Commandments (34:27–29). Exodus 35–40 then recounts the careful obedience with which the people adhere to God’s command to build the tabernacle, assiduously following the instructions given in Exod. 25–30.

The description of the tabernacle given in the text is of an ornate sanctuary within a tent structure situated at the very center of Israel’s camp. The tabernacle thus took the place of the tent of meeting described in Exod. 33:7–11, which was pitched outside the camp. However, the terms “tabernacle” and “tent of meeting” appear to be used synonymously in the Pentateuch after the construction of the tabernacle was completed. According to the text, the dimensions of the tabernacle were as follows: 150 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 7.5 feet high (Exod. 27:18). Around the exterior of the tabernacle was an outer courtyard where an altar for burnt offerings stood at the entrance to the tent of meeting, as well as a basin filled with water for the ritual purifications of the priests. Within the outer enclosure of the tabernacle stood a lampstand, an incense altar, and a table where the bread of the Presence was placed. Within the temple was a second enclosure, the holy of holies, where the ark of the covenant was placed beneath the wings of the golden cherubim.

Various kinds of priests served to care for the tabernacle and its offerings, utensils, and equipment. Aaron and his sons were ordained as ministering priests, who offered sacrifices on behalf of the people (Lev. 8–9). The descendants of Levi were appointed as assistants to Aaron and his sons, divided according to various tasks in the care of the tabernacle and its effects. The work of the Kohathites was “the care of the most holy things” (Num. 4:4), carrying the golden altar, the table of the Presence, various utensils, and vessels. The work of the Gershonites was to carry the curtains of the tent, its ropes, and other equipment (4:21–28). The work of the Merarites was to carry “the frames of the tabernacle, its crossbars, posts and bases, as well as the posts of the surrounding courtyard with their bases, tent pegs, ropes, all their equipment and everything related to their use” (4:31–32).

The commandments for building the tabernacle parallel the giving of the law to Moses: one shaped the people’s worship, and the other shaped the people’s ethic of living. The precise detail of the tabernacle’s construction emphasized the wondrous and dangerous power of God’s presence within the tent. After the building of the tabernacle, God no longer dwelled on a distant mountain but now resided perilously close in holy otherness. The assiduous ordering of the temple worship provided stability and structure to the people’s sojourning in a strange land, which was a time of uncertainty and struggle. Indeed, the tabernacle served as a tangible reminder of God’s presence and promise traveling alongside God’s people.

In the ancient Near East, tents were used as shelters, particularly for nomadic peoples (Gen. 13:5, 18), seminomadic herders (Song 1:8), wealthy travelers or caravans, and military encampments (2 Kings 7:5–8). Tent coverings could be made of fabric (often woven from goat hair [e.g., Exod. 26:7]) or animal skins. Poles, pegs, and ropes were used to raise the tent and hold it in place (Isa. 33:20; 54:2). Tents were used both as dwellings (Gen. 4:20) and as meeting or worship spaces (2 Sam. 6:17). The term “tabernacle” also refers to a tent structure (e.g., Job 18:6 KJV), especially to the tent God inhabited from the time of the exodus until Solomon built him a more permanent dwelling (see Tabernacle, Tent of Meeting). A tent is used as a metaphor for the sky or the heavens (Pss. 19:4; 104:2; Isa. 40:22) and often symbolizes protection or habitation (Job 18:14; 22:23; Ps. 61:4). In the NT, the image of a tent is used figuratively of human flesh and earthly existence (2 Cor. 5:1–4; 2 Pet. 1:13; cf. John 1:14; see also Shekinah). Paul was a tentmaker by trade, as were Priscilla and Aquila (Acts 18:2–3). See also Pavilion.

(1) The father of Abram (Abraham), Nahor, and Haran (Gen. 11:24–32). After Har-an’s death in Ur, Terah and family traveled to the city of Harran, where Terah died at the age of 205. He was a pagan (Josh. 24:2), perhaps a moon worshiper, for his name is related to the Hebrew word for “moon,” and Ur and Harran are known ancient centers of moon worship. Abram only moved after his father died (Acts 7:4), suggesting that Abram, though listed first among the sons, was not the oldest son, being only seventy-five at the time (Gen. 12:4). (2) An Israelite wilderness encampment (Num. 33:27–28).

Teraphim are household idols that varied in size and purpose. Rachel hid them from Laban by sitting on them (Gen. 31:19–35). It is clear that Laban valued them highly, possibly because of their perceived powers of divination (30:27). When David fled from Saul’s men, Michal put teraphim in his bed with goats’ hair at the head (1 Sam. 19:11–16), indicating substantial size and raising the question as to why David possessed teraphim. The details of both incidents suggest that these objects were viewed by the authors with contempt.

Teraphim were associated with false worship and divination (2 Kings 23:24; Ezek. 21:21; Zech. 10:2). When Samuel condemned Saul’s disobedience, he likened teraphim to the sin of divination (1 Sam. 15:23). The Ephraimite Micah’s shrine included an ephod and teraphim (Judg. 17:5; 18:14–31). Hosea also linked teraphim with the ephod (Hos. 3:4) in the list of cultic and national icons of which Israel would be deprived.

A tree species used to translate the Hebrew ’elah, often translated as “oak.” Both the oak and the terebinth are large trees that live a very long time. Under this type of tree Jacob buried the idols of Laban’s household (Gen. 35:4), God appeared to Abraham (Gen. 18:1), the angel of the Lord appeared to Gideon (Judg. 6:11), the bones of Saul and his sons were buried (1 Chron. 10:12), and various pagan gods were worshiped (Hos. 4:13; Ezek. 6:13).

One of the two eunuchs who guarded the doorway of King Ahasuerus of Persia and plotted an assassination of the king that was discovered by Mordecai and reported to Queen Esther, his cousin. After the plot was revealed to Ahasuerus, Teresh and his coconspirator, Bigthana, were executed (Esther 2:21–23).

In 2 Chron. 9:11 the KJV translates the Hebrew word mesillah, of uncertain meaning, as “terrace.” The early Greek and Latin translations understand it to refer to some kind of step, and most modern translations follow that sense (NIV, NRSV, NASB), though the ESV uses “support.”

Fear, as it appears in Scripture, is a response ranging from respect and reverence to sheer panic and absolute terror.

Proper and Improper Fears

There are both proper, godly fears and improper, sinful fears. On the one hand, God has given us the ability to respond to rightly perceived fears. When Joseph heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea, he “was afraid” to go there with Mary and Jesus (Matt. 2:22), and God directed him to go to Nazareth instead. On the other hand, Scripture gives us many examples of people who were overcome by sinful fear. After Adam had sinned, he heard God coming to him in the garden, and he said, “I was afraid . . . so I hid” (Gen. 3:10). Abraham was afraid for his life, so he pretended that Sarah was his sister (Gen. 20:2). King Saul disobeyed God’s explicit commands because he “was afraid of the men” (1 Sam. 15:24). Fear can be both sinful in and of itself and something that leads to other sinful responses.

God understands our struggle with sinful fear and knows that we need someone who is stronger than our fears: God himself. David says, “When I am afraid, I put my trust in you” (Ps. 56:3). Ultimately, our hope is in Jesus Christ, who came to “free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death” (Heb. 2:15). The author of Hebrews goes on to tell us how we are to experience this victory through Christ: “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin. Let us then approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need” (Heb. 4:15–16).

Paul asks the question “Who [or, we could add, ‘what’] shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword?” (Rom. 8:35), and then gives his classic answer: “For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (8:38–39). The reality of a sovereign, loving God rules out any possibility that his people will ever find themselves in situations outside of his love and control. For the believer, “We know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose” (8:28).

Fear of God

There is a popular saying: “The fear of God is the one fear that removes all others.” God wants to free people from wrong fears so that they can fear the one person really worth fearing: God himself. Jesus warned, “But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him” (Luke 12:5). Indeed, the one appropriate fear mentioned well over a hundred times in Scripture is a proper fear of God. The author of the book of Ecclesiastes concludes his wrestling to find meaning and purpose in life with these words: “Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the duty of all mankind” (12:13).

God’s frame of reference. What can a proper fear of God do for us? The answer from the book of Proverbs is that a proper fear of God is foundational to everything else in life: “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” (1:7) and “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (9:10). Every area of life needs to be lived under the direction of God and for his glory, and without a proper fear of God, living a life pleasing to God becomes impossible. Having a proper fear of God involves seeing and responding to all the daily circumstances of life from God’s frame of reference. It is this proper fear of God that involves catching a glimpse of life as it truly is, and especially of God as he is in all his glory and splendor, that gives people the strength and encouragement they need to go through all the difficult experiences of life. Although there are many unanswered questions regarding the various tragedies and difficulties we experience, life does not begin to make sense until a person catches a glimpse of who God is and how he is at work behind the scenes in history and world events. No one can ever go far in a relationship with God apart from a proper fear of him. Instead, “the fear of the Lord is a fountain of life” (Prov. 14:27) that strengthens and sustains us.

Knowing and seeking God. What does fear of God look like? Proverbs 9:10, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding,” places “fear” and “knowledge” in poetical parallelism. Apparently, knowing God and fearing him are really one and the same, like two sides of a coin describing the same reality. Similarly, not fearing God is simply another way of saying that a person does not know him. It is no surprise to discover that to fear God or be a “God-fearer” is one of the standard biblical descriptions for being a follower of God (Acts 10:2). In one sense, having a proper fear of God is simply one way of describing how one is in a proper relationship with God. Scripture is clear that for the ungodly, or even for the disobedient believer, there is a fear in the sense of terror or panic as one contemplates the coming judgment of God (Heb. 10:27, 31). But the believer should have confidence in God’s love and in the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement, so that this kind of negative fear is out of place. For the believer, the fear of the Lord is a respectful, reverential awe of God’s glory and majesty, leading inevitably to a changed life. This positive kind of fear should involve a positive seeking out of God and a new desire to please him, combined with a new dread of displeasing him. Proverbs is also very explicit about this purifying aspect of the fear of the Lord: “Through the fear of the Lord evil is avoided” (16:6).

Having a proper fear of God has an ongoing, moment-by-moment quality in much the same way that a spouse or parent naturally thinks about others in the family and wonders how they are doing. Whereas the wicked person does not seek God, and “in all his thoughts there is no room for God” (Ps. 10:4), the opposite is true of those who fear God: they regularly and inevitably find themselves thinking about God, reflecting upon him, respecting him, looking to him for his help and sustenance, valuing his view of things, and actively seeking to please and obey him in everything they do. Fearing God means that we trust him more than we trust ourselves or anyone else. Fearing God is both deciding for (Prov. 1:29 speaks of those who “did not choose to fear the Lord”) and living out an ongoing commitment of giving God the place he deserves in our lives. As Paul tells us, “Continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil. 2:12). A person who has come to fear the Lord is never the same afterward.

Arising when Felix was procurator of Judea (AD 52–60), a group of revolutionary Jews favored freedom and equality to the point of opposing any kind of human rule (even Jewish). The group is called the Sicarii, after the short dagger they often used (Lat. sica). Josephus reports that they would conceal the daggers under their clothing, assassinate their enemies in broad daylight, especially during festivals, and escape in the crowd, sometimes feigning surprise and indignation at the murder and thus removing suspicion against themselves (Josephus, Ant. 20.8.5; J.W. 2.13.3). This original cloak-and-dagger group is mentioned in the NT only at Acts 21:38, where the commander of the soldiers arresting Paul assumed that he was an Egyptian revolutionary who had led four thousand Assassins (ESV, NASB; Gk. sikarioi; NIV: “terrorists”). Although certainly zealous in their actions, the Assassins’ relationship to the Zealots is debated. See also Zealots.

Tertius addresses the Roman Christians directly in Rom. 16:22 as Paul’s amanuensis, the one who “wrote down this letter.” He is Paul’s only named amanuensis. Tertius’s Latin name and first-person greeting to the church at Rome suggest that he was one of their number.

A lawyer brought by Ananias and some of the elders to Caesarea to present their case against Paul before the Roman governor Felix (Acts 24:1–8). Tertullus’s consistent use of “we” language may indicate that he too was a Jew, although it may reflect his professional technique as the Jews’ advocate. In his speech, Tertullus begins by flattering Felix and then goes on to portray Paul as a troublemaker, “stirring up riots among the Jews all over the world” (24:5). Being a public nuisance, a disturber of the peace, and a leader of the sect of the Nazarenes were all serious charges in Roman law. However, Paul’s subsequent defense proves these charges to be false (24:10–21).

Covenant is one of the most significant concepts in the biblical material that affects our understanding of God, his relationship with his people (past, present, and future), and the structure and message of his word. Since the covenant concept is not a unique biblical idea, comparative literature from the world of the Scriptures has enriched our understanding of the nature and the function of covenant. This article highlights the covenant concept and the genre of covenant and provides a brief overview of the major biblical covenants.

Terminology

Defining “covenant.” What is a covenant (Heb. berit)? Most dictionaries refer to it as a pact/compact or an agreement. Although there is some uncertainty regarding the etymology of berit, the two most commonly suggested etymological derivations are from the Akkadian burru, which refers to the establishment of a legal situation by a testimony with an oath, or the Akkadian bittu, often translated as “to bind, fetter.” The NT counterpart word is diathēkē, defined as a “legal disposition of personal goods.” Interestingly, this NT term is used in reference to the initiative of one person who establishes the terms and provisions of the relationship, which is in keeping with unilateral OT covenants. Some OT dictionaries list the “covenant” root with the root for the word “to eat,” perhaps associating the covenant with a covenant meal.

If the concept of binding best represents the covenant terminology, then the covenant is something that binds parties together or obligates one party to the other. Although there are legal implications associated with covenant, the relational aspect of covenant should not be overlooked. A covenant is best understood as a relationship with related legalities. Marriage, for example, is a covenant that establishes and defines a relationship. This perhaps explains why God chose from the realm of relationships among humans the covenant metaphor to establish and communicate his intent in divine-human relationships. The concept of a covenant relationship between God and people is uniquely developed in the biblical material.

Some covenants are between persons of equal status (parity treaties); others are between a master and a servant (suzerainty treaties), between nations, between clans, and between a husband and a wife (Mal. 2:14). To “cut a covenant” at any level of society implies a solemn commitment to a relationship. Hittite treaties illustrate reports of covenant commitments that include a record of negotiations, formulations of terms, a statement that the act of covenant making actually happened, and a closure of negotiations with solemn ratification of the terms.

The most significant covenant relationship in the biblical material is the one between God and humankind. The uniqueness of Israel’s covenant relationship with Yahweh in contrast to all surrounding nations is established on the basis of Deut. 32:8–9. Although Yahweh gave the nations their inheritance, he selected Israel for his own personal care; he established a relationship with the nation independent of and prior to the nation’s association with his land. This was a unique application of the covenant that ran counter to the prevailing Semitic mind-set, which connected deities to specific geographic territories first and was concerned with the inhabitants of those areas only in a secondary sense. Individual OT believers celebrated their relationship with Yahweh and proclaimed him as the unrivaled universal God (Exod. 15; 1 Sam. 2; Isa. 40).

Other key terms. In addition to the “covenant” terminology word group, several other key terms fill out our understanding of this important concept.

“Oath” is a term used synonymously with “covenant” and functions at times to describe the making of a covenant. The oath emphasizes the liability and obligation associated in the relationship (Deut. 29:19). The oath can be taken by both parties (Gen. 26:28) or by just one party (Ezek. 17:13).

The word “testimony” refers to the contents of the two tablets of stone (Exod. 31:18) received by Moses from God at Mount Sinai. The Ark of the Covenant is also identified by the phrase “ark of the testimony” (Exod. 26:34; 30:6; 31:7 KJV, ESV). Testimony in the context of the covenant refers to the obligations placed upon the nation in covenant with Yahweh.

The term “word” can be understood in connection with covenant communication. The conquest of the land (a covenant promise) is viewed as a performance of the word of God (Deut. 9:5 KJV). The phrases “establish his covenant” (Deut. 8:18 KJV) and “perform his word” (Deut. 9:5 KJV) are parallel ideas within the overall concept of covenant. The sure “word of the Lord” to David in 2 Sam. 7:4 can be contrasted with worthless words of the nation used in making a covenant with God (Hos. 10:4).

Torah is a Hebrew term related to covenant. The terms berit and torah are found in parallel structure in Ps. 78:10. The binding arrangement between God and his people is ultimately based upon and regulated by the instructions of his word. The phrase “Book of the Law” (2 Kings 22:8) has the same covenant implications as the phrase “tablets of the Testimony” (Exod. 31:18 ESV, NASB). God indicted the priesthood for misguiding the people and causing them to stumble at the law (Mal. 2:5–8) and ultimately to be misguided in their relationship with him.

Khesed is another Hebrew term that is frequently used with relation to a covenant. Defined as “steadfast covenant loyalty,” it is also understood as grace, mercy, kindness, loving-kindness. Khesed is that characteristic of God which causes him to act consistently and faithfully regarding self-imposed obligations in covenant relationships despite the failure or success of the other party. The khesed of God will never cease (Lam. 3:19–21) because he keeps covenant and mercy (Deut. 7:9, 12). The loyalty of God to David is stated in 2 Sam. 7:14–15 and celebrated in Ps. 89:14, 24, 28, 33–34, 49. In contrast, the people are indicted for their lack of loyalty (Hos. 4:1).

Common phrases. The most common covenant-making phrase is “to cut a covenant.” Two possible practices lie behind this phrase. The first reflects a practice in Mesopotamia and Syria, cutting a covenant into a tablet with a stylus. This may be somewhat similar to what is found in Exod. 31:18, where it is said that the two tablets of stone were “inscribed by the finger of God.” The second practice behind this phrase is the cutting of sacrificial animals. The halving of animals was part of the covenant made with Abraham in Gen. 15:9–18. In a situation of covenant violation God tells Israel that he will treat them like the calf they cut in covenant making (Jer. 34:17–19). Covenant making is also described as establishing a covenant (2 Sam. 23:5), giving a covenant (Gen. 9:12), and erecting a covenant (Exod. 6:4).

Faithfulness and loyalty to a covenant are expressed by several phrases. “Keep a covenant” exhorts the covenant parties to watch, guard, exercise faithfulness to the terms of the relationship established (Exod. 34:7). “Observe a covenant” implies the demonstration of covenant fidelity in observing and doing (Gen. 17:9–10; Exod. 19:5; NIV: “keep my covenant”). God is obviously faithful in observing the covenant (Deut. 7:9–12). “Remember a covenant” conveys more than just a mental exercise, especially when God is the subject of the verbal action of remembering. When God remembers a covenant, he acts with resolve and intervention (Gen. 8:1; 19:29; 30:22; Exod. 2:24).

Covenant infidelity is expressed by the phrases “break the covenant” (Lev. 26:14–16; Jer. 11:10; 31:32; 33:20–21), “not faithful” (Ps. 78:37), “violate the covenant” (Deut. 17:2; Josh. 7:11, 15; 23:16), and “forsake the covenant” (Jer. 22:9; cf. Deut. 29:25; 1 Kings 19:10, 14).

The Covenant Genre

We now turn to the form, content, and function of a covenant, or the covenant genre. There is evidence of a common treaty form used by ancient Near Eastern peoples to govern relationships between nations and tribes. This evidence dates back to the third millennium BC and is derived from literary texts discovered in the ancient Near East. The most helpful contributions to this discussion come from the Hittites (1400–1200 BC), the Assyrians (800–600 BC), and the Babylonians. From this evidence, we are able to identify four ancient Near Eastern arrangements.

1. The intertribal treaty was a legal arrangement between tribes and clans for various purposes such as the purchase of land, trading, or peaceful coexistence. The arrangements made in this format were equally binding on both parties. A possible biblical example is the arrangement between Abraham and Abimelek in Gen. 21:22–34 or the arrangement between Abimelek and Isaac in Gen. 26:28.

2. The parity treaty was an arrangement made between kings and princes who were equal in each other’s eyes. This arrangement involved mutual participation, as illustrated in the economic relationship established between King Solomon and King Hiram of Tyre in 1 Kings 5:1–12.

3. The suzerainty treaty was established between two parties, one inferior and one superior. The distinctive emphasis of the treaty was on the superior party, the suzerain. In this arrangement the suzerain agrees to make certain provisions for the vassal. He agrees to defend the vassal in the case of attack, along with permitting the existence of the vassal nation. In addition, the suzerain has the right to take tribute from the vassal at any time. The vassal, for his part, agrees to a position of servanthood but not slavery. Vassals honor the suzerain with tribute and material goods.

There are six basic parts to the format of this treaty. Many scholars believe that the suzerainty treaty form has influenced the structure of the book of Deuteronomy.

(a) The treaty begins with the preamble that identifies the treaty’s author/originator (cf. Deut. 1:1–6a; 5:6a, 23–27).

(b) The second part is the prologue, which contains a review of the past relationship between the vassal and the suzerain constructed in an “I-Thou” format (cf. Deut. 1:6b–3:29; 2:7; 4:32–38). The purpose of this section is to review the previous acts of benevolence demonstrated by the suzerain toward the vassal. The faithfulness of the suzerain to the vassal would perhaps instill some measure of confidence for entrance into this relationship. In Hittite treaties there was often a grace ethic ideology that characterized the prologue and served as a basis of appeal for obedience. The Hittites demonstrated a measure of appreciation for conquered vassals and treated them with dignity by allowing them limited sovereignty. The Assyrians operated with a power ethic that motivated obedience by threatening dismemberment, torture, and even death. Yahweh appealed to Israel on the basis of the grace of redemption (Exod. 20:8–11; Deut. 5:12–15) and the privilege of revelation (Deut. 4:12; cf. Rom. 3:2).

(c) The stipulations are the third part of the treaty form. These are the expectations of the suzerain for the vassal (cf. Deut. 4:1–23; 6:4–7:2; 10:12–22; 12–26). The stipulations call for the vassal to be loyal in war, to loyally return political refugees, and to not murmur against the suzerain and his kingdom. The heart of the stipulation in Deuteronomy is the appeal to “love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength” (6:5), one of the most important verses of the OT.

(d) The deposit and public reading of the treaty is the next division. This section instructs the vassal to place the treaty in his sanctuary and directs the vassal to publicly read the document from one to four times per year (cf. Deut. 10:1–5; 31:9–13). A regular reading was designed to keep the stipulations before the vassal in order to nurture respect for the suzerain.

(e) In the next part, a list of witnesses, usually gods, are called upon to observe the covenant and to punish any breach of it (cf. Deut. 30:19–20).

(f) The final part of the treaty is a section of blessing and curse. This section contains a list of potential rewards for faithfulness and terrifying possibilities of retribution for covenant violations (cf. Deut. 28–29).

4. The royal grant treaty, used in both biblical and secular literature, is somewhat similar to the suzerainty treaty. The distinctive difference is that the obligation of the grant is not on the vassal but rather on the suzerain to protect the rights of the vassal. In this format the curse is directed against any third party that would oppose the vassal or against the suzerain who would act unfaithfully against the vassal.

Covenants in the Bible

Types of covenants. The material on covenant form, content, and structure comes into play when attempts are made to interpret the major covenants recorded in the Bible (Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and new). Initial discussions usually revolve around whether these covenants are conditional or unconditional. Although there is merit to this discussion, covenants should also be understood in light of which party is bearing the treaty obligation. As described above, the obligation of the suzerainty treaty is upon the vassal to fulfill the expectations of the suzerain. In the grant treaty the obligation is placed upon the suzerain to fulfill the treaty promises made to the vassal. There is a sense of conditionality and unconditionality in both treaty forms.

On this basis, the Mosaic covenant is most fittingly understood in light of the suzerainty treaty. This covenant made at Mount Sinai established Israel as a covenant nation. Yahweh never intended to create a relationship with Israel on the basis of this covenant. Rather, he chose this covenant form as the means to regulate his relationship with Israel, the nation that he had just graciously redeemed. The Mosaic covenant addressed every aspect of Israelite life. so that the prophetic charges against the nation’s transgressions were considered covenant violations.

The Abrahamic and Davidic covenants are more like a grant. In the Abrahamic covenant Yahweh is obligating himself to gift Israel with land, seed, and blessing (Gen. 12–17). The halving of animals in Gen. 15:9–20 resembles a covenant-cutting ceremony in which Yahweh, in the form of a smoking firepot, walks between the animals, obligating himself to the terms of the covenant. In the Davidic covenant (2 Sam. 7; Ps. 89), Yahweh obligates himself to provide David and his descendants a king and a kingdom. The new covenant is first referenced by Moses in Deut. 30:6 and then developed more extensively in Jer. 31:31–33 and Ezek. 36. Scholars debate the nature of this covenant and the promises associated with it. Some define it as a grant and speak of it in unconditional terms, while others view it as an administrative covenant. The new covenant anticipates a change in the heart of the vassal that ultimately facilitates keeping of the law. The OT Scriptures see this happening in connection with Israel’s occupation of the land at a future time.

Covenant leadership positions. In addition to the very specific covenant arrangements made by God in the OT defining and regulating the life and future of Israel, God established three key covenant leadership positions for the nation: prophet, priest, and king (Deut. 17–18). Their connection with the covenant is evident from the fact that their origin and function are detailed in the covenant book of Deuteronomy.

God provided a prophet (Deut. 18:9–22) for the nation so that it would not learn the abominations of the Canaanites and surrounding nations. God desired spiritual integrity for his people and established the prophet as his mouthpiece to speak what he commanded (Deut. 18:18–20). The prophet was to be an Israelite who fit a Moses-like pattern (Deut. 18:18–19). The writing and nonwriting prophets often called Israel back to covenant fidelity. They did this by using legal terminology to illustrate covenant violations, thus establishing covenant lawsuits against them. Isaiah 1 is a case made by God against the nation. In this lawsuit God functions as judge, jury, and lawyer.

The priest (Deut. 17:8–13; 18:1–8; 33:8–11) had a threefold function within the covenant community. He was a mediator of people before God and of God before people. This particular function of the priesthood was broad and encompassed much of its work. The priest was a teacher who sought from the Torah resolution to disagreements between parties (cf. Jer. 18:18). It is also worth noting that the teaching of the priest preceded sacrifice. Finally, he was a minister of sacrifice. The priest led Israel in worship and sacrifice, giving instruction concerning what was clean and unclean (Lev. 13–15).

The king was also a provision of the covenant (Deut. 17). Kingship was not a divine accommodation to the desire of Israel (1 Sam. 8) but rather a part of the overall covenant plan of God revealed to Abraham (Gen. 17:16). The promise of kingship was reiterated in Gen. 35:11; 49:10. The duty of the king involved administration of the kingdom on the basis of the word of God (Deut. 17:18–20; cf. Prov. 29:4, 14).

Covenant in the Old Testament. Covenant is a dominant theme that gives cohesiveness to the structure of the OT and distinguishes the history of Israel. The phrase “covenant history” can be used to describe the biblical literature that recounts the events and episodes of Israelite life. It is a macrogenre that characterizes the historical narratives of the OT. Although this large literary corpus of historical narrative shares a covenant perspective, the individual books within the narrative corpus are noted for the attention they give to various aspects of the covenant relationship. For example, Gen. 12–50 develops the covenant promises of seed and blessing through a number of subgenres such as genealogies and family stories. Joshua, on the other hand, engages several military subgenres to recount the tension between the promise of land occupation and the responsibility of Israel to occupy the land. Covenant history is a realistic presentation of the tensions associated with the covenant relationship between Yahweh and the nation of Israel.

Finally, the psalms have a direct covenant connection emphasizing covenant worship. Psalm 119 (esp. vv. 57–64) is filled with covenant terms that relate to God’s word (testimonies, laws, oath, judgments). Marching to the place of worship designated by the covenant is reflected in the Psalms of Ascent.

Covenant in the New Testament. Although the covenant theme is less pervasive in the NT, its christological significance is profound. The NT highlights the significant messianic role of Christ in relation to the covenants. Paul references the new covenant in both books of Corinthians (1 Cor. 11:25; 2 Cor. 3:6). Each celebration of the Lord’s Supper reminds us that the shed blood of Christ is the blood of the new covenant. The new covenant is cut in connection with or on the basis of his death, burial, and resurrection (1 Cor. 11:25). The writer of the book of Hebrews gives detailed attention to how the new covenant functions in contrast to the old Mosaic covenant. The writer explains that Jesus is the guarantor of a better covenant (7:22; 8:6–7). Finally, Paul indicates that we are now considered ministers of the new covenant ministry (2 Cor. 3:6).

In Hebrew the word for “testimony” (’edut) has a legal meaning, describing a statement given by an observer of an event in dispute. Sometimes, especially in the book of Exodus, the word can refer to Israelite law (e.g., Exod. 25:16, 21, 22 [NIV: “covenant law”]). In the NT the Greek word martys is translated as “witness” or “testimony” and carries the same legal connotation as the OT. Here the context of the testimony is Jesus’ life and ministry. This is why those who die for their witness are called “martyrs.”

The ruler of a fourth part of a realm. At the death of Herod the Great in 4 BC, his kingdom was divided and bequeathed to his three sons. Archelaus, assigned half of the realm (Judea, Idumea, and Samaria), assumed the title of ethnarch. His brothers Herod Antipas and Philip were tetrarchs of Galilee-Perea and Trachonitis/Gaulanitis-Iturea respectively (see Matt. 2:22; Luke 3:1). Herod Agrippa I (Acts 25:13), by the imperial grant of Emperor Claudius, reestablished the kingdom of the Jews in AD 41, thereby terminating tetrachy in ancient Palestine.

NT textual criticism is the science of discerning the reading of the original Greek text of the NT. NT textual criticism is relatively different from the textual criticism of the Hebrew OT, since the two Testaments were copied in substantially different ways, resulting in quite different issues and types of copying problems.

Textual criticism is necessary for two reasons: (1) none of the original texts for any of the books of the NT (the autographs) have survived; (2) all the surviving copies that we do have differ from one another in at least minor ways. NT textual criticism is the discipline of examining all the readings found in the surviving copies (including other early translations and the writings of the church fathers) in order to discern the most-likely original text of the NT.

In many ways there is nothing surprising or unusual about this activity. This same discipline is used in the case of all ancient documents where the original no longer exists and there are multiple, but different, surviving copies. What sets the textual criticism of the Bible apart from the textual criticism of Plato, Aristotle, or any other extrabiblical author is the importance of Scripture. It is absolutely crucial that scholars be as accurate as possible in discerning the words of the Bible. Present-day doctrinal statements about the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture usually focus on how it is the actual documents written by the original authors of the Bible (the autographs) that were inspired and inerrant, and not necessarily each and every copy or translation that was ever made. At the same time, NT textual criticism provides strong and ample evidence that the standard translations of today are reasonable copies of the original texts and therefore are inspired and authoritative.

Another reality that sets the textual criticism of the Bible apart from the textual criticism of any other ancient document involves the large number of manuscripts containing all or parts of the NT. Aristotle’s writings (384–322 BC) have survived in only five ancient manuscripts, the earliest of which was last copied around AD 1100. Thus, the manuscript support for discerning the proper wording of Aristotle’s writings is five manuscripts, the earliest of which was copied some fourteen hundred years after its original composition. The NT, by contrast, has been preserved in almost 5,500 handwritten Greek manuscripts, the earliest of which may be only decades removed from the actual composition of the NT. In addition, there are tens of thousands of other manuscripts of the NT translated into other languages of the early church (especially Latin, Syriac, and Coptic) and perhaps something like a million quotations and allusions to the NT in the writings of the church fathers. The amount of manuscript support for the Bible is without parallel when compared with any other ancient writing, thus providing a firm foundation for the trustworthiness of the Bible.

New Testament Manuscripts

If all the surviving Greek manuscripts of the NT from all the museums and ancient-book rooms around the world could be gathered together and examined, there would be a number of obvious differences. For one thing, these manuscripts are written on different materials. The oldest manuscripts include some 116 papyri written on papyrus sheets (made from the stems of a papyrus plant pressed together to make a flat writing surface) and date from as early as AD 125 until the eighth century. Virtually all the rest of the hand-copied manuscripts were written on parchment (leather from animal skins stretched thin) and range in date from the second century to as late as the sixteenth century.

Another significant difference involves the style of handwriting. Here there are two primary categories: uncials (majuscules) and minuscules. The three hundred or so uncial manuscripts were written using an early style of “capital letters” (comparable to hand-printing a text in all capital letters) and range in date from the second century to as late as the tenth or eleventh century, with the majority between the fourth and tenth centuries. The 2,800 or so minuscule manuscripts were written in a later style of semicursive using primarily “lowercase letters” (more comparable to cursive penmanship today) and range in date from the ninth to the sixteenth centuries.

A third basic difference involves the arrangement of the material. In addition to standard biblical texts arranged in regular canonical order, almost half (about 2,200) of the manuscripts of the Greek NT are lectionaries composed of series of short passages designed to be read on a fixed regular schedule, almost like the responsive readings found in many modern hymnals. These range in date from the ninth to the sixteenth centuries and cover the vast majority of the passages in the NT, and thus they constitute another significant source of information about the proper reading of the original text.

Other obvious differences in outward appearance involve the scope of the original work and how well it has been preserved. Only a small number of manuscripts were written to encompass the entire Bible, including the OT (usually the Greek translation called the “Septuagint”), the NT, and frequently various books of the Apocrypha as well. Other manuscripts were designed to include only the NT. However, the vast majority of the surviving Greek manuscripts of the NT originally included only a portion of the NT (due primarily to the cost in materials and labor), most often a collection of the four Gospels, or the Pauline Epistles, or some other smaller subset of the NT. Still another reality is that many ancient manuscripts may have lost pages or the binding may have broken, leaving only incomplete sections of the original manuscript. Some NT manuscripts have survived only in the form of torn fragments, sometimes only a portion of a page in size.

Different Readings

Different readings among these manuscripts fit into two broad categories: unintentional changes and deliberate corrections. Unintentional changes took place when a scribe was genuinely trying to make a good copy and due to simple human error failed to read a letter clearly, did not hear a word clearly (assuming that the text was being dictated aloud), inadvertently wrote a homonym instead of the right word, lost the proper place on the page, or mistakenly assumed that some marginal note on the page belonged in the text. Deliberate corrections were also a recognized part of the work of a scribe whereby a scribe tried to make a text read better or more clearly. Although some of the early church fathers warn of heretics making deliberate changes in the text for theological reasons (actual instances of this are hard to document), sincere Christians sometimes sought to improve the theological clarity or style of the text.

There are various estimates of the number of places where different manuscripts have different readings. If one is taking stock of any and all differences regardless of how minor, then there are more than ten thousand different places in the text that have textual problems. The Textus Receptus, or Majority Text (underlying the KJV translation), has some five to six thousand differences from the Greek texts underlying most other, more recent English translations, although most of these are minor differences in word order, spelling, and so forth and make no practical difference in content. The standard scholarly United Bible Societies Greek NT includes a discussion of something like 1,440 sets of variant readings that were deemed sufficiently significant for inclusion in the critical apparatus. A contemporary translation such as the NIV lists over a hundred specific instances of textual uncertainty in the NT of sufficient significance to provide a possible alternative translation.

Still another question involves the theological significance of these differences among the surviving manuscripts. Although this can be a potentially threatening topic, it should be noted at the beginning that no area of Christian doctrine stands or falls because of possible textual problems. The entire foundation of theology is firm and certain. Nevertheless, there are perhaps several dozen places where textual differences have definite implications for either doctrine or practice. For example, does 1 Tim. 3:16 help establish the deity of Christ by referring to Christ as “God” (KJV), or is “he” (most modern translations) the correct reading? Or when we quote the Lord’s Prayer, should we include the final words “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory forever. Amen” (from the KJV)? Or, for still another issue, is it proper to preach and teach from the resurrection stories in Mark 16:9–20 or the story of the woman caught in adultery in John 7:53–8:11 (both of which are absent from early and reliable manuscripts)? English versions answer these questions differently.

However, a large number of textual problems are more minor in nature and involve little if any practical differences in application. For example, in 1 John 1:4 was John focusing on “your” joy or “our” joy? But by far the largest category involves textual differences that make no discernible differences at all in our English translations. Examples include differences in Greek word order, a choice between certain Greek tenses, similar grammatical constructions, the usage of synonyms, and some spelling differences. Differences in this final category are so minor that often they cannot be detected in English translations.

Different Families or Text Types

Another difference involves the “text type,” or family of manuscripts. Certain manuscripts with similar readings have a family resemblance with other similar manuscripts. The issue here involves patterns of copying errors among these manuscripts. In the late nineteenth century, two British scholars, B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, developed what they identified as the genealogical method for NT textual criticism. One component of this approach involves the recognition of at least three different “families” of related manuscripts presumably related to three different geographical areas of the early church: Byzantine or Syrian manuscripts (based in Syria or the later Byzantine Empire in Turkey), Alexandrian manuscripts (based in Egypt), and Western manuscripts (based more in Italy and North Africa). This classification system involves generalizations comparable to discerning a person’s nationality and ethnic background by various physical features. Some manuscripts are relatively easy to classify using this system, others are more difficult, and still others turn out to be quite mixed in nature. Yet there is a certain helpfulness to this system.

Certain conclusions can be drawn from this classification system. The vast majority of manuscripts (some 80 to 90 percent) are the Byzantine text type. These include virtually all the minuscules and lectionaries and tend to be relatively later in date. The remaining 10 to 20 percent of the manuscripts tend to be earlier and include the Alexandrian manuscripts, the handful of Western manuscripts, and a good number of early manuscripts that cannot be easily placed in either of these two categories. The Alexandrian readings tend to be briefer and more succinct in style, while the Western readings tend to be more unusual and eccentric, in contrast to the Byzantine ones, which tend to be more polished and harmonizing.

Applying Textual Criticism

There are different approaches to NT textual criticism. The two primary ones are (1) the King James/Majority Text approach associated with the KJV, and (2) the contemporary scholarly approach followed by virtually all other standard translations beginning with Westcott and Hort’s English Revised Version of 1881. Both approaches are built around an understanding of the history of the text. The Majority Text argument is built on the assumption that the original reading will have been preserved in the largest number of surviving manuscripts, in this case the relatively later Byzantine manuscripts. The contemporary scholarly approach assumes a so-called genealogical method whereby the Majority Text of the Byzantine manuscripts is believed to be the later “offspring” of the earlier Alexandrian and Western manuscripts and therefore more or less irrelevant for discovering the original text. Thus, this method essentially rejects the Byzantine manuscripts in favor of the earlier ones, especially the Alexandrian ones. Manuscripts are still counted and dated, but priority is given to the earlier manuscripts and to readings found in several different text types.

Textual Criticism, Old Testament–Centuries separate the earliest attested Hebrew manuscripts (MSS) and the canonical form of the biblical text. The transmission of the Hebrew Bible in many ancient and medieval sources reveals differences between the texts; consequently, textual criticism involves the comparison and analysis of those textual differences in both ancient sources and modern printed editions of the OT. Text critics collect from MSS and other textual witnesses all the details in which these texts differ from one another and then evaluate those differences to arrive at the most accurate original reading. Some of these differences were created in the course of textual transmission, while others are the result of scribal additions and the processes that created readings and texts over the centuries. In many cases, these differences are minimal and exert no significant theological or interpretational influence on the text itself.

Goals and Assumptions

The text critic seeks to recover the processes of the text’s written transmission so as to restore it not to the most ancient form or earliest literary strand of the biblical corpus, nor to the earliest attested textual form, but rather to the copy that contained the finished literary product and that stood at the beginning of the textual transmission process. Consequently, the text critic accepts the notion of a single, authentic text (Urtext) from which all extant MSS of a specific book have evolved rather than the existence of ancient parallel texts. Text critics identify and resolve textual errors in the text by revealing the history of their emergence, explaining how those errors or inconsistencies occurred. They consider and evaluate deviant or differing readings from the textual apparatus (notes written at the bottom of the printed critical versions) of the Masoretic Text (MT), such as Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia and R. Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica. Textual scholars remove or correct readings from extant or existing final forms of MSS and sometimes, in the absence of manuscript evidence, conjecturally emend or “suggest translational alternatives” for the text when the extant evidence defies a reasonable or clear reading. The most recent work by the Hebrew University Bible Project (HUBP) eliminates all scholarly conjectures proposed without manuscript evidence from its consideration in the text-critical process.

Discrepancies between textual witnesses to the OT include differences in book, chapter, and verse divisions, as well as layout and chapter sequence. The nature of scribal transmission assumes that although the scribes carefully copied the sacred texts, errors occasionally occurred. These textual corruptions may be unintentional, such as the reduplication of a letter or a word, confusion between letters that resemble one another, wrong word divisions, incorrect vocalization, or the accidental reversal of two letters. Occasionally a word may have been omitted, or words from marginal or interlinear comments (called a “gloss”) may have been inserted in the main text. In the case of intentional corruptions or alterations, scribes attempted to harmonize the morphology or grammar of a text, give explanations (also called “conflation”), incorporate material from parallel passages, substitute euphemistic words or phrases in place of offensive material, and, rarely, alter the texts theologically when the original wording seemed disrespectful to God.

Text Families and Translations

Some scholars theorize that the Hebrew MSS evolved from three local textual families arranged geographically, though more-recent scholarship seems to refute this view as simplistic. According to this theory, during the fifth century BC two local texts developed independently of each other in Babylon and Palestine. A third, the Alexandrian family, broke off from the Old Palestinian text and eventually served as the “source” or “model” for the translation of the Septuagint (LXX) between 250 BC and AD 150. The Samaritan Pentateuch resulted from the Palestinian family and, combined with the Babylonian tradition, formed the official corpus of the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets. The corpus of the Latter Prophets derived solely from the Palestinian text. This combination of texts formed the authoritative basis for the MT. The Leningrad Codex (AD 1009) is the oldest preserved complete Hebrew Bible, providing one of the best examples of the MT. The 1947 discovery of the Qumran scrolls gave text-critical scholars access to customary scribal activity and affirmed the existence of pluriform, or multiple, text types. These scrolls, transmitted during the third through first centuries BC, represented all the OT books except Esther and provided a Hebrew text witness that reinforced the relative veracity of the MT.

Ancient translations, such as the LXX, provided the source text from which the Old Greek, Lucian, Eusebius, and other Greek versions developed. In addition, the LXX formed the basis of the Old Latin, Vulgate, and Syriac versions as well as the Targumim. The importance of the elementary text-critical principle “Texts do not count, they weigh,” which forms the basic assumption when evaluating textual witnesses and comparing potential readings, becomes clearer in light of these developments. For example, a text critic would consider a reading in a Qumran witness as the equivalent or superior to readings attested in the LXX and its offspring texts.

Weighing Variant Readings

A consideration of variant readings involves all Hebrew and reconstructed details that differ from an accepted form of the MT, including additions, subtractions, letter and word differentiation, differences in word division, vocalization (or pronunciation), and word sequence. Scholars denote the MT as the textus receptus, or “received text,” which forms the translation base then of the Hebrew Scriptures. In some cases, critics of the OT believe that the MSS and versions reflect varying stages or versions in the editing of a final text. For example, 2 Sam. 22 and Ps. 18 are parallel texts in slightly different forms. Text critics acknowledge the existence of alternate forms of identical texts that were equally acceptable to the ancient poet by assuming that during the time of the OT, authors modernized or contemporized texts in an appropriate manner. One text does not have to be superior to the other; instead, both are legitimate, as in the case of Isa. 2:2–4 and Mic. 4:1–5.

OT text critics explore explanations for contradictory or different readings among text traditions, evaluate the weight of the textual evidence, and analyze a host of readings to determine which reading best explains the others or harmonizes with the literary evidence. In addition, text scholars ask whether a particular reading is grammatically acceptable and whether the word or phrase fits into the syntactic context of the sentence and the scope of the wider passage. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, text critics generally prefer the shorter reading because throughout history texts have a tendency to expand. In addition, when the MT and all other witnesses offer a text that is unobjectionable, makes sense, and has been preserved without a variant, scholars often assume that it is the “original text” preserved by the tradition and should be accepted. Furthermore, in the case of two alternative readings, if an explanation is available as to the manner in which one of these may have arisen from the other, then scholars consider the explicable reading as the weaker of the two.

The complexity of the text-critical enterprise, particularly when applied to the Hebrew Scriptures, requires a combination of intuition, skill, experience, careful attention to detail, and facility in cognate languages. The absence of extrabiblical Hebrew texts makes the OT textual analysis more difficult, since the scholar has a limited corpus of material from which to draw conclusions. OT text criticism is an ongoing process that will engage biblical scholars for years to come.

The Textus Receptus (or Received Text) became the standard Greek text of the NT from its original development by Erasmus in the early sixteenth century until the mid-nineteenth century and was used by virtually all the translations made during this period, including the King James (Authorized) Version.

Development

Although the NT was originally written in Greek, Latin soon became virtually the sole language of the Roman Empire. By the fourth century, the Greek language was increasingly limited to the eastern or Byzantine area of the church. By the Middle Ages, both a knowledge of Greek as well as the actual possession of Greek manuscripts largely disappeared from the Western world. It was only with the Renaissance that a knowledge of Greek was revived and Greek texts from the East became available again. This reemergence of Greek, combined with the new technology of Gutenberg’s printing press, made possible the Greek text known today as the Textus Receptus.

The Renaissance scholar Erasmus published the first printed Greek NT in 1516. Erasmus based most of his work on two manuscripts of the Gospels and one of Acts and the Epistles. He compared these with two or three others that he happened to have. In one of the quirks of history, he ran into a problem with the last six verses of Revelation, where his one manuscript that included Revelation was missing the last page. In order to meet his publishing deadline, Erasmus translated the last six verses of Revelation into Greek himself from the popular Latin Vulgate, producing a totally unique text for these verses.

Another interesting aspect of Erasmus’s work is that he did not find the words “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And these three bear witness in earth” (KJV) in any manuscript he had of 1 John 5:7–8. These words had found their way into the Latin Vulgate and were well known in Erasmus’s day. People objected, and in an unguarded moment, Erasmus responded that if he could find a single Greek manuscript with those words, he would include them in his next edition. Before long, someone had a Greek manuscript produced expressly for Erasmus that included these words. (Scholars currently date this manuscript to around 1520, the exact date of this controversy.) To honor his promise, Erasmus included these words in the next edition despite his clear misgivings about the dubious origin of these words. These words have continued to this day in the Textus Receptus, and in English translation in the King James Version and the New King James Version.

For almost four hundred years, Erasmus’s Greek text went through many editions as the standard Greek text of the NT. In one of these printings, two Dutch publishers, the Elzevir brothers, included a sales blurb in the Latin preface of their second edition of 1633 containing the words “Textus Receptus” (“received text”). Thus, this text originally published by Erasmus eventually came to be known as the Textus Receptus. Although Erasmus’s methodology was hurried and somewhat haphazard, the text that he produced was in substantial harmony with the vast bulk (80–90 percent) of all Greek manuscripts (or what today is often called the “Majority Text”).

Rise of Other Greek Editions

As the centuries went by, hundreds of other manuscripts of the Greek NT were discovered. One of the most interesting stories here involves a German scholar, Constantin von Tischendorf, who discovered the now well-known Codex Sinaiticus as it was slowly being used up, a page at a time, to start the kitchen fires at the monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai. Scholars have wrestled with the question of how to explain the discrepancies between the new manuscripts, especially the 10 to 20 percent that disagreed with the traditional text.

The death knell for the widespread acceptance of the Textus Receptus took place largely through the work of two British scholars, B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, although in many ways they actually were building on the work of others. Westcott and Hort were part of a group organized to revise the King James Version that produced the English Revised Version of 1881 and the corresponding American Standard Version of 1901. However, their main contribution was to popularize an altogether different approach to textual criticism.

Westcott and Hort developed a genealogical methodology based on a classification of Greek manuscripts into three families: 80 to 90 percent of the manuscripts are Byzantine or Syrian manuscripts (presumably related to the Byzantine area of the ancient world), 10 to 20 percent are Alexandrian manuscripts (associated with Egypt), and a handful are Western manuscripts (related to the central and western Mediterranean). Then they constructed a genealogical family tree to help them understand the relationships among these three families of manuscripts. Their conclusion was that the Byzantine manuscripts underlying the Textus Receptus were the offspring of the earlier Alexandrian and Western manuscripts and therefore virtually irrelevant for discovering the original reading of the Greek NT. They also concluded that the Western manuscripts were more idiosyncratic and therefore less relevant as well, thus leaving them with the conclusion that the original readings are most apt to be found in the Alexandrian manuscripts. Westcott and Hort’s work lies at the foundation of our modern critical Greek New Testaments and almost all of our modern English translations (the exception being the New King James Version).

Since the time of Westcott and Hort, NT textual scholars have often employed an eclectic methodology, which, although not built on the exact same theory as Westcott and Hort’s, makes similar assumptions (including that the Textus Receptus is late and unreliable) and usually produces similar results. A small minority of scholars continues to advocate a Majority Text approach, arguing that the original reading is most likely to be preserved in a numerically larger number of manuscripts, thus producing a text similar to the Textus Receptus. A few have even gone so far as to argue for a “King James only” approach, as if the King James Version is more inspired than any other translation or even than the underlying Greek text.

One of the twelve apostles (Matt. 10:3; Mark 3:18). Thaddaeus was also called “Judas son of James” (Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13) or “Judas (not Judas Iscariot),” whose only recorded words appear in John 14:22.

The third of the four sons of Nahor and his concubine Reumah (Gen. 22:24).

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 2:53; Neh. 7:55). 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.

(1) Judah’s daughter-in-law who bore him twin sons, Perez and Zerah, thus carrying on the family of Judah (1 Chron. 2:4). In Gen. 38, Tamar, after being married to Judah’s first son, Er, and then his second son, Onan (both killed by God for their wickedness), was to marry Judah’s third son, Shelah, according to Israelite custom. Afraid that Shelah too would die, Judah resisted this duty and instructed Tamar to live as a widow at her father’s house.

When Tamar saw that she would not be allowed to marry Shelah, she disguised herself as a prostitute and was approached by Judah. Providing her with a pledge, Judah impregnated Tamar. Tamar, when found to be pregnant, was accused of acting unscrupulously. But upon revealing Judah’s pledge, Tamar was declared by Judah to be “more righteous than I” (Gen. 38:26). Tamar is mentioned later in Scripture in a blessing (Ruth 4:12) and holds a place in the genealogy of Jesus (Matt. 1:3).

(2) The daughter of King David who was raped by her half brother, Amnon. The violence done to Tamar was later avenged by her brother Absalom, who killed Amnon (2 Sam. 13). (3) The beautiful daughter of Absalom (2 Sam. 14:27), perhaps named after her aunt. (4) A location on the southeastern boundary of Judah (Ezek. 47:18–19; 48:28). This may be Hazezon Tamar (Gen. 14:7), which became En Gedi (2 Chron. 20:2). See also Baal Tamar.

A response of grateful people toward a gracious God. In the OT, thanksgiving is conspicuously absent from the patriarchal narratives, where the characters often appear ungrateful. Thanksgiving appears in the Pentateuch only in Lev. 7:12–15, where thanksgiving is one kind of fellowship offering given in public worship, usually for deliverance from peril. Thanksgiving becomes a prominent exhortation in the Psalter, where it occurs over fifty times. Worshipers are encouraged to thank God (in public worship) for deliverance from the physical perils common to being outside the safety of one’s community (Ps. 107) and from perils within (Ps. 103). Later, prophets (Isa. 51:3; Jer. 30:19), the Chronicler (1 Chron. 23:30), and twenty-eight other psalms speak of thanksgivings by offering songs rather than sacrifices. Thanksgiving, however, is still in the context of public (cultic) worship.

Later Jewish literature expanded expressions of thanksgiving outside a sacrificial context to include the individual or family at home before each meal (b. Ber. 35a). Similarly, Jesus offers thanks before a meal (Matt. 15:36; 26:27).

The other major occurrences of thanksgiving in the NT are found in Paul’s letters. While Greco-Roman letters occasionally began with thanksgiving to a deity for providing health or safety, Paul offered far longer and more frequent thanksgivings than any known writer. Thanksgiving must be considered one of the distinguishing characteristics of Paul’s writings and teachings. Both OT and NT examples and teachings indicate that thanksgiving to God is expressed in front of others and not merely in silent individual prayers to God.

The Hebrew word tarshish refers to a precious stone (NIV: “topaz”; Exod. 28:20; Ezek. 1:16). The name of the stone probably comes from its place of origin (see #4, below). “Tarshish” is also used as a name. (1) A son of Javan, grandson of Japheth, and great-grandson of Noah (Gen. 10:4; 1 Chron. 1:7). (2) A son of Bilhan, grandson of Jediael, and great-grandson of Benjamin (1 Chron. 7:10). (3) One of the seven princes of Persia and Media who had access to the presence of King Ahasuerus and advised him to put away Queen Vashti because of her refusal to obey the king’s command to appear before the banquet (Esther 1:14).

(4) A place frequently mentioned in the OT. Solomon engaged in trade with Tarshish (1 Kings 10:22 NRSV, NASB; 2 Chron. 9:21 NRSV, NASB), and it is described as a source of precious metals such as gold and silver (Jer. 10:9; Ezek. 27:12). Its location is unknown, but it is associated with islands (Ps. 72:10 NRSV, NASB) and with Jonah’s flight by ship from Joppa on the Mediterranean (Jon. 1:3). Both Tartessus in southwest Spain and the island of Sardinia have been suggested as possible sites.

The phrase “ships of Tarshish” (Ps. 48:7; Isa. 23:1) may refer to a fleet originating from Tar-shish or more generally to a type of seaworthy merchant vessel. It is thus sometimes translated by the NIV as “trading ships” (1 Kings 10:22; 22:48).

“The deep” (Heb. tehom; Gk. abyssos) refers to the deep sea or the depths of the sea, in particular to the primeval sea that was understood to exist prior to God’s creative work, which brought order to the chaotic initial state of the world (Gen. 1:2), and that re-covered the earth as creation was reversed in the flood (Gen. 7:11; 8:2). The Hebrew term is etymologically related to the primeval Babylonian goddess who, according to the creation myth in the Mesopotamian text known as the Enuma Elish, was slain by the god Marduk and from whose carcass the universe was formed. In spite of this, there is no indication that the term as used in the Bible was in any way associated with the Babylonian deity, particularly given that the root itself was also used at Ugarit and Ebla to mean “the deep.”

Although the OT does not import the mythological and religious ideas associated with the deep from Mesopotamia, the deep nevertheless often represents a somewhat ominous place, a fearful place of chaos (e.g., Ps. 148:7; Jon. 2:5), sometimes symbolically representing the depths of despair (Ps. 71:20). Yet the OT affirms God’s complete control and sovereignty over the deep (Pss. 33:7; 77:16; 135:6; Isa. 51:10). Elsewhere, however, the term can simply refer to the source of springs and appears to reflect an abundant supply of water (Deut. 8:7; Ps. 78:15).

In the NT, the deep (or the abyss) is presented as a place of the dead (Rom. 10:7) or a prison for demons (Luke 8:31; Rev. 9:1–11) from which opposition to God arises. Revelation also continues the view that the deep sea is a place of darkness and opposition to God with the pronouncement that in the new heaven and new earth there is no longer any sea (Rev. 21:1).

Hearing Paul speak Greek, a Roman tribune mistook him for “the Egyptian,” who had recently led four thousand terrorists into the wilderness (Acts 21:37–38). Jews had been immigrating to Egypt since the sixth century BC, but they maintained close ties with Jerusalem, often making a pilgrimage to the second temple (see, e.g., the prologue of Sirach; Let. Aris. 83–120). Alexandria, a great Egyptian center for Greek learning and culture, had the largest Jewish community outside Palestine. Rome had to quell Jewish rebellions in both regions. The first-century Jewish historian Josephus corroborates the event and adds supplemental detail (J.W. 2.261–63; Ant. 20.169–72). He claims that the Egyptian was a “false prophet,” a messianic “imposter,” who deceived an even larger body of people (“thirty thousand” [J.W. 2.261] or a “multitude of the common people” [Ant. 20.169]). Like the exodus generation, these people wandered in the wilderness, before eventually gathering on the Mount of Olives to besiege Jerusalem. The Egyptian claimed that the city’s walls would fall at his command. However, the Roman procurator Felix attacked preemptively. Although the Egyptian escaped, most of his followers were killed or imprisoned. Josephus also mentions the terrorists or “assassins” (sicarii), who murdered Roman sympathizers with short, curved swords (e.g., J.W. 2.254; Ant. 20.186).

Shema is the transliteration of a Hebrew word meaning “hear” (shema’ ), the first word of Deut. 6:4: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.” The text that begins with this verse is therefore referred to as the Shema. The Shema emphasizes the oneness of God and the obligation to love him and is the most important prayer in Judaism. It is recited twice daily and begins a weekly liturgical reading that includes Deut. 6:4–9; 11:13–21; Num. 15:37–41. These Torah passages emphasize monotheism and the centrality of the commandments.

Jesus called the Shema the greatest commandment (Mark 12:29–30; Matt. 22:37–38; Luke 10:27) and invoked it in teaching his oneness with the Father (John 10:30). Paul later expanded the Shema to include Jesus (1 Cor. 8:6).

A title designating members of the group of twelve disciples (Matt. 10:2–4; Mark 3:16–19; Luke 6:13–16) who received Jesus’ teaching (Luke 17:5) and to whom he granted authority (Mark 6:7, 30; Luke 9:1, 10). Matthias later replaced Judas Iscariot (Acts 1:24). These apostles provided leadership to the early church in Jerusalem (Acts 15:6), performed miracles (Acts 2:43; 2 Cor. 12:12), and faced persecution (Acts 5:18) as they testified to Jesus’ resurrection (Acts 4:33; 5:32). Broader usage of the term includes witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection (1 Cor. 15:7), James the brother of Jesus (Gal. 1:19), Barnabas and Paul (Acts 14:14), and possibly Silas (1 Thess. 2:6) and Andronicus and Junias/Junia (Rom. 16:7). Paul regularly speaks of his calling in apostolic terms (Rom. 1:1; 1 Cor. 1:1; 2 Cor. 1:1; Gal. 1:1; Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:1; 1 Tim. 1:1; 2 Tim. 1:1; Titus 1:1), while Peter similarly self-identifies (1 Pet. 1:1; 2 Pet. 1:1). The word is once used of Jesus himself (Heb. 3:1).

A large building or arena that housed entertainment, public hearings, and other public venues. Though rarely mentioned in the Bible, theaters were a major fixture in Greco-Roman culture. The Greek word theatron, from which the English word “theater” developed, appears twice in Acts 19:29–31, when Paul’s traveling companions, Gaius and Aristarchus, are thrust into the center of a riot at the theater in Ephesus. The only other occurrence of theatron in the Bible is in 1 Cor. 4:9, where Paul speaks metaphorically of the apostles as a “spectacle” before the world, angels, and people. Also, the related verb theatrizō (“to shame publicly”) occurs once in Heb. 10:33, where the author recounts the trials of the faithful.

Theaters were brought to Palestine with the coming of Greek culture. According to Josephus, Herod the Great had built both a theater and an amphitheater in Jerusalem, which apparently caused some discontent among the Jewish leaders. But despite the idolatry, violence, and lewdness of the theaters, their influence was widespread. Even Paul quotes from the Greek comedy Thais (1 Cor. 15:33). Every major ancient city had a theater, as did many smaller cities as well. They typically were built into a hillside to save on construction costs. Most were semicircular with terraced seating and a stage backdropped by a large decorated structure. Many of these ancient landmarks can still be seen throughout the Mediterranean region.

This town is now modern Luxor in Egypt, about three hundred miles south of Cairo. Second only to Memphis in importance and size, it first emerged as significant around 2000 BC. Known as “the City” and “the city of Amon” (an Egyptian deity), it was sacked by the Assyrians in 663 BC (cf. Nah. 3:8, 10), and further judgment was predicted (Jer. 46:25–26; Ezek. 30:14–16).

A fortified city of Manasseh near Shechem. After burning down the tower of Shechem, Abimelek attacked Thebez, where a certain woman dropped an upper millstone on his head, cracking his skull and critically injuring him (Judg. 9:50–54). He then ordered his armor-bearer to kill him for fear that a woman be credited with his death.

Unlike modern systems of jurisprudence, the Bible does not draw distinctions between criminal, civil, family, and religious law, either in its terminology or in its presentation of legal material. In the Bible, acts of deviance that are defined as criminal in virtually all societies are discussed alongside violations of a culturally specific, religious nature. For instance, the Ten Commandments prohibit murder and dishonoring parents (Exod. 20:12–13), as well as commanding Sabbath observance (Exod. 20:8–11). Any attempt to extract a system of criminal law from biblical materials must account for the fact that every culture defines deviance differently, with respect not only to specific acts but also to categories of deviance.

When viewed from the standpoint of the Bible’s organization of legal material, the terminology used, and the sanctions applied, there is substantial overlap in the Bible between “crime” and what modern societies define as noncriminal deviance. For present purposes, we might define “crime” broadly as including any act of social deviance that merits the application of a sanction by society at large (as opposed to the ad hoc fiats of rulers, as in Gen. 26:11) and that can be prohibited in a generally applied rule (even accounting for differences between free citizens and slaves, as in Exod. 21:18–21). As we will see, the Bible requires punishments, often severe, for a broad spectrum of offenses.

Capital Crimes

The Pentateuch mandates the death penalty for a wide variety of crimes. Often the mode of execution is unspecified. Where a particular mode is prescribed, the death penalty most often consisted of stoning (as in Num. 15:35) and less frequently of burning (Lev. 20:14) or shooting with arrows (Exod. 19:13).

Crimes incurring the death penalty include killing or murder (Exod. 21:12–14; Lev. 24:17; Num. 35:16), though the crime is aggravated or lessened depending on the intention behind it (Exod. 21:13–14) and whether a weapon is involved (Num. 35:16); attacking parents (Exod. 21:15); kidnapping and slave trading (Exod. 21:16; Deut. 24:7); cursing parents (Exod 21:17; Lev. 20:9); negligence resulting in death (Exod. 21:29); bestiality (Exod. 22:19; Lev. 20:15–16); breach of the Sabbath (Exod. 31:14–15; Num. 15:35); child sacrifice (Lev. 20:2); adultery (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22); incest (Lev. 20:11–12); homosexuality (Lev. 20:13); marrying a woman and her mother (Lev. 20:14); witchcraft (Exod. 22:18; Lev. 20:27); blasphemy (Exod. 24:16); unauthorized approach to the tabernacle (Num. 1:51); idolatry (Num. 25:5); false prophecy and divination (Deut. 13:5); presumptuous prophecy (Deut. 18:20); enticing others to idolatry (Deut. 13:6–10); false testimony in a capital case (Deut. 19:19); and contempt for authorities (Deut. 17:2; Josh. 1:18).

When the body of an executed criminal was displayed by hanging, it had to be removed by nightfall (Deut. 21:22). The death penalty was not to be applied vicariously to family members of criminals (Deut. 24:16). In OT texts, execution was to be carried out by the victims (Deut. 13:9), families of victims (the “avenger of blood” of Num. 35:19), or witnesses to the crime.

The NT mentions an official or professional executioner (Mark 6:27). Paul declares that the authorities rightly derive the power of the sword from God (Rom. 13:4).

Punishments for Noncapital Crimes

Corporal punishment. Beating as a criminal punishment is rare in the OT (Jer. 20:2; 37:15). Most OT references to beating occur in the context of the household, as a punishment for slaves or children. Deuteronomy 25:3 limits the number of strokes in a flogging to forty (see 2 Cor. 11:24). Flogging was commonly applied as a criminal punishment in Roman times, and it was a common mode of discipline within the Roman military (Acts 16:22; 2 Cor. 11:25; 1 Pet. 2:20).

Restitution. Crimes against property were punished by compelling the offender to make restitution by repaying, often in an amount that exceeded the actual damages, including in cases of theft or negligence (Exod. 21:33; 22:3–15); killing an animal (Lev. 24:18, 21); having sexual relations with a virgin not pledged to be married (Exod. 22:16); injuring a pregnant woman (Exod. 21:22); harming a slave (Exod. 21:26–27). Financial restitution could not be made for murder (Num. 35:31).

Retribution. The notion of the lex talionis, the law of retribution, is stated in Exod. 21:23–24: “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (cf. Lev. 24:19–20; Deut. 19:21; Matt. 5:38). This formula appears in other ancient legal traditions. The idea of bodily mutilation may strike modern readers as barbaric, but such laws may actually have been relatively enlightened by ancient standards, as they imposed a proportional limit on retribution.

Incarceration. In modern societies, incarceration and probation account for the vast majority of the punishments resulting from criminal offenses. In the OT, incarceration is rarely mentioned apart from the imprisonment of war captives (e.g., Judg. 16:21) and political dissidents. Jeremiah was imprisoned several times for his criticism of the regime (Jer. 32:2; 37:15). Throughout the Bible, prisoners often are guarded by soldiers rather than by professional jailers.

Paul imprisoned Christians prior to his conversion (Acts 8:3), and he himself was imprisoned or placed under arrest several times (e.g., Acts 16:23; 20:23; 24:27; Rom. 16:7). John the Baptist was imprisoned after he criticized Herod (Mark 6:17). Again, in both cases, incarceration was used to silence and segregate someone whose free movement in society threatened political stability rather than to punish a common criminal. In Matt. 5:25–26 Jesus refers to imprisonment for an unspecified reason, though the threat that “you will not get out until you have paid the last penny” suggests that incarceration was a substitute for an unpaid fine or monetary penalty. This recalls Exod. 22:3, which mandates that a thief who could not make financial restitution for theft must be sold (as a slave).

Banishment and cities of refuge. A number of OT passages refer to the “cutting off” of a person from the community. It is not clear whether this language refers to exile or the death penalty; several of the crimes thus punished are known to be capital crimes in other texts.

The law of Num. 35:6–34 establishes six “cities of refuge” among the towns allotted to the Levites. To these cities an unintentional killer could flee from the “avenger of blood,” a relative of the victim, until such time as the case could be adjudicated by the whole community. A killer who was found to have acted unintentionally and without malice could remain in the city of refuge, safe from retribution, until the death of the high priest, at which time the killer was free to return home with impunity.

Trials and Judgments

In biblical times Israel did not have an independent judiciary. Judgments in criminal cases were rendered by local elders (Josh. 20:4), communities (Num. 35:24), monarchs, or other rulers and officials. The judges of the book of Judges were primarily military rulers, though they may have also adjudicated cases as a function of their military and political power (Judg. 4:5). Cases were decided on the basis of eyewitness testimony (Num. 35:30) and, in the case of capital crimes, on the basis of multiple witnesses (Deut. 17:6). In some cases, the Bible provides detailed statutory criteria for making such judgments, as in the discussion in Num. 35:16–28 of the difference between murder and unintentional killing. In some cases, where the determination of guilt or innocence would have been impossible, as in the case of suspected adultery, a verdict could be attained through divination (Num. 5:11–31). As already noted, the judgment of some cases could be affected by the slave status of those involved (Exod. 20:20–21; see also 22:8–9).

The trial and execution of Naboth, though ultimately a subversion of justice of the highest order, offers an insight into the operation of justice in Israel in the monarchic period (1 Kings 21:1–16). Naboth was accused on a trumped-up charge of blasphemy, a capital crime (Exod. 24:16). He was tried by the notables of his city, and on the testimony of two (false) witnesses (Deut. 17:6), he was then stoned to death.

From the standpoint of OT law, the trial and execution of Jesus were complicated by the context of concurrent systems of Jewish and Roman law and government. Like Naboth, Jesus was accused by false witnesses (Matt. 26:60–61). Ultimately, the Sanhedrin determined that because Jesus had blasphemed in its presence by identifying himself as the Messiah and the Son of God, further witness testimony was unnecessary in order to achieve the desired result, the death penalty (Matt. 26:65–66; John 19:7). Ultimately, the Sanhedrin had to involve the Roman governor because it lacked the authority to execute a criminal (John 18:31). By the time Jesus was taken before Pilate, the charge had been changed from a religious one to a political one: Jesus claimed to be the king of the Jews, thus subverting Roman authority (Matt. 26:11–12). Eventually, Pilate tortured and executed Jesus not because he saw merit in the charges but rather to avoid a riot (Matt. 27:24; John 19:4, 12). Luke reports that Jesus also had a trial before Herod Antipas, the ruler to whom Jesus was subject as a Galilean (23:7). Thus, the trial of Jesus in some ways reflects both Jewish and Roman law, but it also involves some purely pragmatic (and legally and morally questionable) actions on the part of both the Sanhedrin and Pilate.

A city of “the people of Eden” whose destruction was alluded to in Sennacherib’s letter to Hezekiah. Sennacherib’s letter serves both to warn and to mock Hezekiah in order to sway him toward surrender and away from faith in God (2 Kings 19:9–13).

(1) A town assigned to Judah located on the northern boundary of Judah between Beth Shemesh and north of Ekron. It is the same Timnah originally assigned to Dan (Josh. 15:10; 19:43). In the time of judges it belonged to the Philistines, and here Samson took his first wife (Judg. 14). In the time of King Ahaz it belonged to Judah but was taken by the Philistines (2 Chron. 28:18). It is identified as modern Tell el-Batashi, three miles south of Gezer, or Khirbet Tibneh (two miles southeast). (2) A village in the southern hill country of Judah located southeast of Hebron and stated to be near Gibeah (Josh. 15:57). This is where the patriarch Judah met his disguised daughter-in-law, Tamar, on the way to Timnah (Gen. 38:12–14).

A form of government that acknowledges God’s kingship. God functions as the ultimate king in every era of biblical history, regardless of the form of human government.

In the book of Deuteronomy, theocracy is indicated in affirmations that Yahweh is Israel’s commander in chief. Yahweh goes before his people and fights battles on their behalf (1:30, 33; 3:22; 7:1, 22–24; 9:3–5; 11:23). An important passage that anticipates the monarchy prescribes that God chooses the human king (17:15). That king should neither turn the people back to Egypt nor amass horses, wives, or riches (17:16–17). Rather, the king is to keep God’s law with him and must “read it all the days of his life so that he may learn to revere the Lord his God and follow carefully all the words of this law . . . and not consider himself better than his fellow Israelites” (17:19–20).

The book of Judges recounts a series of leaders who fail to uphold the theocratic ideal of Deuteronomy. Both the tribes and leaders repeatedly “did evil in the eyes of the Lord” (2:11; 3:7, 12; 4:1; 6:1; 10:6; 13:1). The closing chapters of Judges state, “In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as they saw fit” (17:6; 21:25; cf. 18:1; 19:1). These refrains show that Israel needs a human king who will help the people to do what is right (rather than evil) “in the eyes of the Lord.” Israel must maintain theocracy if it is to avoid foreign oppression.

The same issue is at stake in the account of Saul’s rise to kingship. The Israelites’ request for a king is problematic not only because they desired to be like “all the other nations,” but also because they desired a human king who would go before them and fight their battles (1 Sam. 8:5, 20). By asking for a king who would serve in the role of commander in chief, they effectively supplant Yahweh and reject theocracy (1 Sam. 8:7; 10:19; 12:12). In keeping with Deuteronomy, Samuel explains that both king and people are to fear, serve, and obey Yahweh if they are to experience blessing (1 Sam. 12:14–15, 25; cf. Deut. 17:19–20). Since Saul has failed to uphold theocracy, God rejects him as king (1 Sam. 13:14; 15:11, 23, 26–28, 35) and seeks out a man who meets his own criteria for kingship (13:14; cf. 15:28). That David has a proper perspective on God’s authority is evident in statements such as “the battle is the Lord’s” (1 Sam. 17:47). David especially acknowledges God’s kingship by installing the ark in Jerusalem and desiring to build the temple (2 Sam. 6–7), actions that lead to the Davidic covenant (7:4–17).

The Davidic covenant is foundational for a biblical theology of God’s kingdom. Numerous psalms are devoted to God’s kingship (Pss. 2; 20; 21; 47; 93; 145), and eschatological prophecies reveal much about the messianic king/kingdom (Isa. 9; 11; Jer. 23; 30; 33; Ezek. 37; Dan. 2; 7; 9; Mic. 5; Zech. 9; 14). The NT shows that God’s kingdom has arrived in part at the first coming of Jesus but awaits its full consummation at his second coming (Matt. 3:17; 12:28; Mark 1:14–15; Luke 17:20–21; Acts 1:6–8).

God the Worker

A biblical theology of work starts with God as the creator of all things. In the OT, the verb bara’ (“to create”) is used only with God as subject. The first verb in the Bible (Gen. 1:1), it occurs also in many other texts that describe God accomplishing what only God can do. Other terms such as yatsar (“to form, fashion”) and ’asah (“to make, do”) are used numerous times throughout the OT with either God or humans as subjects.

These three terms reinforce the portrayal of God as worker in Gen. 1–2 (cf. Isa. 45:7). God creates light and darkness; sky and earth; sun, moon, and stars; land and sea; plant and animal life; and humankind—in sum, all that is. He forms the “man” (Heb. ’adam) from the dust of the ground, bringing him to life by breathing into him the breath of life.

Elsewhere in the OT God is said to build, build up, or rebuild/restore (Heb. banah [e.g., Pss. 102:16; 147:2; Jer. 24:6; Amos 9:11]). Interestingly, God takes a rib from the man, which he then makes (lit., “builds into” [Heb. banah + le]) a woman (Gen. 2:22). He founds (Heb. kun) the earth (Isa. 45:18) and stretches out (Heb. natah) the heavens (Zech. 12:1). Further, wisdom is God’s “craftsman” (Heb. ’amon), taking part in the world’s creation (Prov. 8:30). The NT reveals Christ as the one through whom God creates all things (John 1:1–3; Col. 1:16). This brief sketch suggests the range of ways in which God’s work is described.

Human Labor

Ideally, work is performed as service to God (Col. 3:17, 22–24). Work is one way we express the divine image. God’s creation mandate to fill, subdue, and rule the earth implies work (Gen. 1:26–28), and God places the man in the garden “to work it and take care of it” (Gen. 2:15). The importance of work for human dignity as well as survival undergirds the laws of gleaning that make provision for the poor to gather their own food (e.g., Deut. 24:19–22). The expansion of human technologies and occupations (mela’kah [see Exod. 12:16]) reflects that dignity and God’s own diverse workmanship. Job 28 celebrates human industry and achievement while subordinating all to the prevailing value of wisdom, rooted in “the fear of the Lord.” Given the indispensable role of work within the limits of human life, diligence is commended (Eccles. 3:9–10), idleness condemned (Prov. 10:4; 12:24; 21:5; 2 Thess. 3:6–10). Work is essentially God’s good gift to us in creation.

But work now has negative aspects. In response to Adam’s sin, God curses the ground, introducing “painful toil” into the work cycle (Gen. 3:17–19; 5:29). We now eke out our living by hardship, finding frustration instead of bounty—a lifelong reminder that we are made of dust and will return to dust. The book of Ecclesiastes echoes this note of futility and raises sharp questions about the lasting value of human labor (1:2–3, 14; 2:4–11, 17–23; 3:9; 4:4–6; 8:16–17). Sin and death haunt the unfolding occupations in Gen. 4, and the episode of the tower of Babel in Gen. 11 signals God’s judgment on human pretension (cf. James 4:13–16). Excessive toil (workaholism) is a pitfall, not a virtue, for it expresses reliance on self rather than on God, who builds, protects, and gives rest (Ps. 127:1–2). Oppressive, unjust working conditions are cause for lament, and they incur God’s judgment (Exod. 5:6–19; Prov. 14:31; James 5:4–6).

Thus, Israel’s labor policy is to reflect God’s covenant faithfulness, generosity, and concern for the vulnerable. Moses’ law places limits on employers/masters to protect employees, slaves, and foreign workers from exploitation. The primary limit is God’s command that Israel keep the Sabbath holy by a complete cessation of labor (Exod. 20:8–11; Deut. 5:12–15). This move prioritizes God’s covenant above human labor and sets a rhythm of work and rest. Exodus grounds the Sabbath in God’s rest from his work of creation on the seventh day. Deuteronomy ties it to Israel’s history of slavery in Egypt and deliverance by God; by keeping the Sabbath, Israel shows gratitude to God and guards against replicating Egypt’s oppressive policies.

Exodus 31–32 portrays work in its best and worst lights. The proper interplay of work and rest is seen in chapter 31, which narrates the divinely empowered work on the tabernacle, followed by a strong reminder to keep the Sabbath as a “sign” between God and Israel. In contrast, chapter 32 portrays artisanship put to the worst use, the making of a golden idol. Aaron fashions gold with a tool and makes the calf image, but later he tells Moses, “I threw [their gold jewelry] into the fire, and out came this calf!” (32:24). This remark anticipates the prophets’ later mockery of idol-makers (e.g., Isa. 44:9–20) and raises the issue of personal responsibility for the outcome of one’s labor: Aaron seeks to avoid being implicated in Israel’s idolatry by concealing his own role in the project.

Public labor issues increase in complexity when Israel adopts human kingship and engages in international trade (e.g., 1 Sam. 8; 1 Kings 9:15–23). Babylon deals a decisive blow to Judah’s statehood by deporting leaders and skilled workers. Many of these establish such viable, productive new lives in Babylon that when Cyrus later allows the exiled Judeans to return, they choose to remain.

The NT assumes the legitimacy of work and adopts the OT’s view that within proper limits work is a good gift of God. Jesus, however, has come to do his Father’s “work” (John 5:16–18), which entails calling some people away from their normal occupations to follow him, as well as a new approach to Sabbath observance (Mark 2:21–27; 3:4). These moves signal the urgency and newness of the kingdom of God. Consequently, the apostles are “co-workers in God’s service” (1 Cor. 3:9), and Christians are “God’s handiwork” (Eph. 2:10). In light of the resurrection, we offer to God work (Gk. ergon) and labor (Gk. kopos), not in futility but in hope (1 Cor. 15:58; cf. Rev. 14:13).

An appearance by God. The word “theophany” is not found in the Bible; however, by the early fourth century AD, the term had come to be used in reference to God. Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea at that time, uses the term (Gk. theophaneia) in reference to God’s appearances to people as these are recounted in Gen. 18:1–5, 25; 32:28–30; Exod. 3:4–6; Josh. 5:13–15 (Hist. eccl. 1.2.10). This meaning of “theophany,” referring to the biblical phenomenon of God’s appearing, is the sense of the word considered here.

“Theophany” is a compound word, related to the Greek words theos (usually translated as “god” or “God”) and phainō (often translated as “to appear”). The Bible says in many places that God “appeared” (e.g., Gen. 12:7; 17:1; 18:1; 26:2, 24; 35:9; 48:3; Exod. 3:16; 4:5; Deut. 31:15). For example, Gen. 18:1 says that “the Lord appeared” to Abraham. Several other passages say that people saw God (Gen. 32:30; Exod. 24:10; Isa. 6:1). For example, Isa. 6:1 says that Isaiah “saw the Lord.” “Appeared” and “see” usually reflect different forms of the same Hebrew verb.

Closely related to these appearances are statements describing God’s presence and glory within a cloud and at God’s tent or temple. During the exodus of Israel from Egypt, “by day the Lord went ahead of them in a pillar of cloud,” leading them (Exod. 13:21). When Moses later constructs the tabernacle or tent of meeting, a cloud covers it, and the glory of God fills the tabernacle (40:34). God typically speaks to Moses from the tabernacle (Exod. 33:7–9; Num. 1:1; 7:89).

Later, when the temple is dedicated, “the cloud filled the temple of the Lord” (1 Kings 8:10). This cloud is associated with God’s glory, and where God says he would dwell (8:11–12). In the book of Ezekiel, God forsakes the temple because of the sins of Israel, so the cloud and God’s glory depart (Ezek. 10:4). Throughout the Bible, the local presence of God is regularly indicated by the tabernacle and later by the temple, for this is the place where all offerings are given to God, and where people come before God.

In the Bible, an appearance by God does not limit God to one place. Solomon says during the dedication of the temple that even heaven cannot contain God, much less the temple that Solomon has built (1 Kings 8:27). God’s omnipresence is likewise expressed by the psalmist (Ps. 139:7–8).

God does not always appear in the same form in theophanies. The angel of the Lord appears in the fire of a burning bush, saying that he is the God of Abraham (Exod. 3:2–6). Elsewhere, the angel of the Lord is described as a man, but then ascends to heaven in the flame of an altar (Judg. 13:3–13, 20). John describes God sitting on a throne (Rev. 4:2; 5:1). In other passages God is locally present and speaks, yet without explicitly appearing, which might be classified as a theophany (Num. 22:9, 20; 23:16; Mark 1:11; 9:7; John 12:28).

Despite these examples of theophanies, some biblical passages state that people cannot see God. However, these passages may refer to practical human limitations rather than any inherent characteristic of God himself. In Exodus, for example, God tells Moses that no one seeing God’s face can live (33:20). However, God then says that Moses, without seeing God’s face, “will see my back” (33:23). The entire passage indicates that God can be seen more fully, but only with fatal results. Several NT passages similarly indicate that God cannot be fully seen (John 1:18; 4:24; 1 Tim. 1:17; 6:15–16; Heb. 11:27).

Just as God dwelled within the tabernacle, at times showing his glory, the NT says that the Word of God was made to dwell in flesh (incarnate) as Jesus Christ and so revealed God’s glory (John 1:14). This Word of God is the same word that created all things in Gen. 1 and so is genuinely God (John 1:1–3).

The person to whom Luke dedicated both his Gospel and the book of Acts (Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1). The name means “friend of God” or “beloved by God” and was common in the Greco-Roman world. Some have claimed that the name is a symbolic reference to a generic Christian reader, but it is more likely that Luke was addressing his works to a specific individual known to him. The use of the title “most excellent Theophilus” could indicate that he was of high social standing, or it may simply be a greeting that Luke used to indicate respect or admiration.

Founded in 315 BC by the general Kassandros, the city of Thessalonica is located on the eastern coast of Macedonia, on the western shore of the Aegean Sea. The city was well situated for trade, both as a port for seagoing trade vessels along the Aegean and for land trade along the Via Egnatia. The city is approximately 77 miles from Philippi, also on the Via Egnatia, and 320 miles from Athens in the south of Greece. No doubt the apostle Paul traveled from Asia Minor to Philippi to reach several major cities on this route, going through Amphipolis and Apollonia to come to Thessalonica, where the Via Egnatia then turns westward.

Paul had not been well received by many in the city of Philippi, and after being escorted out of town there, he made his way to Thessalonica (Acts 17:1). As was his custom, he went to the synagogue of the Jews. Paul planted a church here after preaching only a few weeks. Though it is not certain from the account in Acts 17 just how long Paul spent in Thessalonica, the text leaves the impression that his time there was short, cut off due to opposition.

After Paul was ill treated in Thessalonica, he went to Berea. According to Luke, the Jews in Berea were more noble than those in Thessalonica because they were willing to search the Scriptures and test what Paul was saying to them (Acts 17:11). In fact, the Jewish leaders in Thessalonica were so upset by the message of Paul that they followed Paul and company to Berea to stir up trouble there (17:13).

Because his visit had been cut short, Paul was concerned about the spiritual condition of the church. After sending Timothy to check on their welfare, he was elated to find this church walking faithfully.

The two final references in the NT to Thessalonica note that Paul was sent a gift from those in the church of Philippi when he was in Thessalonica (Phil. 4:16), and when Demas abandoned Paul, Demas then went to Thessalonica (2 Tim. 4:10).

A political agitator, quite likely a messianic pretender, mentioned by the Pharisee Gamaliel in Acts 5:36. At some time prior to AD 6 Theudas gathered a group of four hundred men, but soon he was killed and his followers were dispersed. This may have occurred in the aftermath of Herod the Great’s death in 4 BC. The Jewish historian Josephus also mentions a magician named “Theudas,” who led a band of followers to the Jordan River sometime in AD 44–46 (Ant. 20.97–99). He and many of his supporters were killed by the Romans.

Unlike modern systems of jurisprudence, the Bible does not draw distinctions between criminal, civil, family, and religious law, either in its terminology or in its presentation of legal material. In the Bible, acts of deviance that are defined as criminal in virtually all societies are discussed alongside violations of a culturally specific, religious nature. For instance, the Ten Commandments prohibit murder and dishonoring parents (Exod. 20:12–13), as well as commanding Sabbath observance (Exod. 20:8–11). Any attempt to extract a system of criminal law from biblical materials must account for the fact that every culture defines deviance differently, with respect not only to specific acts but also to categories of deviance.

When viewed from the standpoint of the Bible’s organization of legal material, the terminology used, and the sanctions applied, there is substantial overlap in the Bible between “crime” and what modern societies define as noncriminal deviance. For present purposes, we might define “crime” broadly as including any act of social deviance that merits the application of a sanction by society at large (as opposed to the ad hoc fiats of rulers, as in Gen. 26:11) and that can be prohibited in a generally applied rule (even accounting for differences between free citizens and slaves, as in Exod. 21:18–21). As we will see, the Bible requires punishments, often severe, for a broad spectrum of offenses.

Capital Crimes

The Pentateuch mandates the death penalty for a wide variety of crimes. Often the mode of execution is unspecified. Where a particular mode is prescribed, the death penalty most often consisted of stoning (as in Num. 15:35) and less frequently of burning (Lev. 20:14) or shooting with arrows (Exod. 19:13).

Crimes incurring the death penalty include killing or murder (Exod. 21:12–14; Lev. 24:17; Num. 35:16), though the crime is aggravated or lessened depending on the intention behind it (Exod. 21:13–14) and whether a weapon is involved (Num. 35:16); attacking parents (Exod. 21:15); kidnapping and slave trading (Exod. 21:16; Deut. 24:7); cursing parents (Exod 21:17; Lev. 20:9); negligence resulting in death (Exod. 21:29); bestiality (Exod. 22:19; Lev. 20:15–16); breach of the Sabbath (Exod. 31:14–15; Num. 15:35); child sacrifice (Lev. 20:2); adultery (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22); incest (Lev. 20:11–12); homosexuality (Lev. 20:13); marrying a woman and her mother (Lev. 20:14); witchcraft (Exod. 22:18; Lev. 20:27); blasphemy (Exod. 24:16); unauthorized approach to the tabernacle (Num. 1:51); idolatry (Num. 25:5); false prophecy and divination (Deut. 13:5); presumptuous prophecy (Deut. 18:20); enticing others to idolatry (Deut. 13:6–10); false testimony in a capital case (Deut. 19:19); and contempt for authorities (Deut. 17:2; Josh. 1:18).

When the body of an executed criminal was displayed by hanging, it had to be removed by nightfall (Deut. 21:22). The death penalty was not to be applied vicariously to family members of criminals (Deut. 24:16). In OT texts, execution was to be carried out by the victims (Deut. 13:9), families of victims (the “avenger of blood” of Num. 35:19), or witnesses to the crime.

The NT mentions an official or professional executioner (Mark 6:27). Paul declares that the authorities rightly derive the power of the sword from God (Rom. 13:4).

Punishments for Noncapital Crimes

Corporal punishment. Beating as a criminal punishment is rare in the OT (Jer. 20:2; 37:15). Most OT references to beating occur in the context of the household, as a punishment for slaves or children. Deuteronomy 25:3 limits the number of strokes in a flogging to forty (see 2 Cor. 11:24). Flogging was commonly applied as a criminal punishment in Roman times, and it was a common mode of discipline within the Roman military (Acts 16:22; 2 Cor. 11:25; 1 Pet. 2:20).

Restitution. Crimes against property were punished by compelling the offender to make restitution by repaying, often in an amount that exceeded the actual damages, including in cases of theft or negligence (Exod. 21:33; 22:3–15); killing an animal (Lev. 24:18, 21); having sexual relations with a virgin not pledged to be married (Exod. 22:16); injuring a pregnant woman (Exod. 21:22); harming a slave (Exod. 21:26–27). Financial restitution could not be made for murder (Num. 35:31).

Retribution. The notion of the lex talionis, the law of retribution, is stated in Exod. 21:23–24: “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (cf. Lev. 24:19–20; Deut. 19:21; Matt. 5:38). This formula appears in other ancient legal traditions. The idea of bodily mutilation may strike modern readers as barbaric, but such laws may actually have been relatively enlightened by ancient standards, as they imposed a proportional limit on retribution.

Incarceration. In modern societies, incarceration and probation account for the vast majority of the punishments resulting from criminal offenses. In the OT, incarceration is rarely mentioned apart from the imprisonment of war captives (e.g., Judg. 16:21) and political dissidents. Jeremiah was imprisoned several times for his criticism of the regime (Jer. 32:2; 37:15). Throughout the Bible, prisoners often are guarded by soldiers rather than by professional jailers.

Paul imprisoned Christians prior to his conversion (Acts 8:3), and he himself was imprisoned or placed under arrest several times (e.g., Acts 16:23; 20:23; 24:27; Rom. 16:7). John the Baptist was imprisoned after he criticized Herod (Mark 6:17). Again, in both cases, incarceration was used to silence and segregate someone whose free movement in society threatened political stability rather than to punish a common criminal. In Matt. 5:25–26 Jesus refers to imprisonment for an unspecified reason, though the threat that “you will not get out until you have paid the last penny” suggests that incarceration was a substitute for an unpaid fine or monetary penalty. This recalls Exod. 22:3, which mandates that a thief who could not make financial restitution for theft must be sold (as a slave).

Banishment and cities of refuge. A number of OT passages refer to the “cutting off” of a person from the community. It is not clear whether this language refers to exile or the death penalty; several of the crimes thus punished are known to be capital crimes in other texts.

The law of Num. 35:6–34 establishes six “cities of refuge” among the towns allotted to the Levites. To these cities an unintentional killer could flee from the “avenger of blood,” a relative of the victim, until such time as the case could be adjudicated by the whole community. A killer who was found to have acted unintentionally and without malice could remain in the city of refuge, safe from retribution, until the death of the high priest, at which time the killer was free to return home with impunity.

Trials and Judgments

In biblical times Israel did not have an independent judiciary. Judgments in criminal cases were rendered by local elders (Josh. 20:4), communities (Num. 35:24), monarchs, or other rulers and officials. The judges of the book of Judges were primarily military rulers, though they may have also adjudicated cases as a function of their military and political power (Judg. 4:5). Cases were decided on the basis of eyewitness testimony (Num. 35:30) and, in the case of capital crimes, on the basis of multiple witnesses (Deut. 17:6). In some cases, the Bible provides detailed statutory criteria for making such judgments, as in the discussion in Num. 35:16–28 of the difference between murder and unintentional killing. In some cases, where the determination of guilt or innocence would have been impossible, as in the case of suspected adultery, a verdict could be attained through divination (Num. 5:11–31). As already noted, the judgment of some cases could be affected by the slave status of those involved (Exod. 20:20–21; see also 22:8–9).

The trial and execution of Naboth, though ultimately a subversion of justice of the highest order, offers an insight into the operation of justice in Israel in the monarchic period (1 Kings 21:1–16). Naboth was accused on a trumped-up charge of blasphemy, a capital crime (Exod. 24:16). He was tried by the notables of his city, and on the testimony of two (false) witnesses (Deut. 17:6), he was then stoned to death.

From the standpoint of OT law, the trial and execution of Jesus were complicated by the context of concurrent systems of Jewish and Roman law and government. Like Naboth, Jesus was accused by false witnesses (Matt. 26:60–61). Ultimately, the Sanhedrin determined that because Jesus had blasphemed in its presence by identifying himself as the Messiah and the Son of God, further witness testimony was unnecessary in order to achieve the desired result, the death penalty (Matt. 26:65–66; John 19:7). Ultimately, the Sanhedrin had to involve the Roman governor because it lacked the authority to execute a criminal (John 18:31). By the time Jesus was taken before Pilate, the charge had been changed from a religious one to a political one: Jesus claimed to be the king of the Jews, thus subverting Roman authority (Matt. 26:11–12). Eventually, Pilate tortured and executed Jesus not because he saw merit in the charges but rather to avoid a riot (Matt. 27:24; John 19:4, 12). Luke reports that Jesus also had a trial before Herod Antipas, the ruler to whom Jesus was subject as a Galilean (23:7). Thus, the trial of Jesus in some ways reflects both Jewish and Roman law, but it also involves some purely pragmatic (and legally and morally questionable) actions on the part of both the Sanhedrin and Pilate.

(1) A town assigned to Judah located on the northern boundary of Judah between Beth Shemesh and north of Ekron. It is the same Timnah originally assigned to Dan (Josh. 15:10; 19:43). In the time of judges it belonged to the Philistines, and here Samson took his first wife (Judg. 14). In the time of King Ahaz it belonged to Judah but was taken by the Philistines (2 Chron. 28:18). It is identified as modern Tell el-Batashi, three miles south of Gezer, or Khirbet Tibneh (two miles southeast). (2) A village in the southern hill country of Judah located southeast of Hebron and stated to be near Gibeah (Josh. 15:57). This is where the patriarch Judah met his disguised daughter-in-law, Tamar, on the way to Timnah (Gen. 38:12–14).

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

One of Jesus’ original twelve apostles (Matt. 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15), referred to as “Didymus,” meaning “twin” (John 11:16; 20:24; 21:2). The infamous title of “Doubting Thomas” comes from his refusal to believe in Jesus’ resurrection. Thomas said, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe” (John 20:25). A week later the risen Jesus again appeared to the apostles, including Thomas. Thomas’s response was “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28). Despite his previous disbelief in Jesus’ resurrection, Thomas was present with the other apostles in the upper room (Acts 1:13).

An unspecified hardship suffered by the apostle Paul, which he refers to in 2 Cor. 12:7. Paul calls this ailment “a messenger of Satan” sent to “torment me.” He also says that he had prayed three times for God to take it away from him, but to no avail (2 Cor. 12:8).

Paul recognized that this “thorn in the flesh” was sent from God to keep him from being conceited after he had received “surpassingly great revelations” (2 Cor. 12:7). The thorn was a positive thing in that it caused him to turn to God and specifically to God’s grace as a source of power for his life. When Paul asked God to take the thorn away, God responded, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness,” and so Paul concludes, “I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me” (2 Cor. 12:8–9).

It is not known specifically what this thorn in the flesh was. Some conjecture that it may have been an eyesight problem, since Paul says in Gal. 4:15 that the Galatians loved him so much that they would have torn out their eyes and given them to him, and in Gal. 6:11 he mentions that he is writing with large letters. This uncertainty concerning the identity of Paul’s thorn in the flesh is not a bad thing, since it allows the application of the principle of dependence on God to various kinds of suffering and hardship.

The last stop on Paul’s recorded trip to Rome (Acts 28:15). Three Taverns lay on the Mediterranean coast of Italy, about twenty-five miles southeast of Rome. Roman Christians traveled down to Three Taverns when they learned of Paul’s presence nearby.

Threshing is the process of removing grain kernels from their stalks. In ancient times, threshing usually was done on a threshing floor. The floor was a compacted surface where the grain was beaten by hand, trodden on by an animal, or crushed by a wheel or sledge. Once crushed, the material was winnowed to separate the light stalk from the heavy grain. During the harvest, the threshing floor was the center of harvesting activity and often a place to spend the night (Ruth 3:3–6). According to 1 Chron. 21:18–28, David purchased a threshing floor in Jerusalem for the future location of the temple. In Luke 3:17; Matt. 3:12 the threshing floor serves as a judgment metaphor warning people to be not the stubble that is burned but the grain that is saved. See also Threshing Sledge.

Threshing is the process of removing grain kernels from their stalks. In ancient times, threshing usually was done on a threshing floor. The floor was a compacted surface where the grain was beaten by hand, trodden on by an animal, or crushed by a wheel or sledge. Once crushed, the material was winnowed to separate the light stalk from the heavy grain. During the harvest, the threshing floor was the center of harvesting activity and often a place to spend the night (Ruth 3:3–6). According to 1 Chron. 21:18–28, David purchased a threshing floor in Jerusalem for the future location of the temple. In Luke 3:17; Matt. 3:12 the threshing floor serves as a judgment metaphor warning people to be not the stubble that is burned but the grain that is saved. See also Threshing Sledge.

A wooden slab with stones or iron teeth embedded in the bottom that was dragged across grain spread on a threshing floor in the process of threshing. Araunah offered his sledge as firewood for David’s offering (2 Sam. 24:22). Threshing with the sledge became a figure for victory (Isa. 41:15) and brutality (Amos 1:3). See also Threshing, Threshing Floor.

Objects used in the OT for determining the will of God. “Urim” traditionally is taken to mean “light,” while “Thummim” is generally connected with a word for “perfect.”

The size and shape of these objects is unknown. They may have been two disks, each with a shiny side and a dull side. They belonged in the breastpiece of the high priestly garments (Lev. 8:8), and presumably they were drawn out by the priest or thrown down in a particular way in response to a question posed (Exod. 28:30; Num. 27:21) and could give a yes or no answer.

In his farewell blessings, the first thing to come to Moses’ mind in outlining the privileges of the priestly tribe of Levi is the Thummim and Urim (Deut. 33:8).

Their use possibly is involved in the accounts of the progressive splitting of the people into two groups in order to find a guilty person (1 Sam. 14:41). A couple of instances of apparently nonbinary answers may be discerned in 1 Sam. 10:22; 2 Sam. 5:23, though it is not explicitly stated that these involved the Urim and Thummim, and if they did, supplementary questions not explicit in the text may have been asked.

King Saul was unable to secure an answer from God by any of the normal means, including Urim (1 Sam. 28:6), which suggests that an indeterminate answer from the disks was possible, perhaps when the disks presented different faces.

The sacred stones that Hosea mentions as being among the things of which Israel would suffer loss in exile (Hos. 3:4) may be the Urim and Thummim. Ezra 2:63 indicates that at that time no priest with Urim and Thummim was available (cf. Neh. 7:65). Whatever the cause, in postexilic times the use of Urim and Thummim as a means of oracular decisions fell into disuse.

Modern-day Akhisar, located about thirty-five miles southeast of Pergamum on a flat plain between Lydia and Mysia, and without natural defenses.

The city was noted for having the richest concentration of trade guilds in Asia Minor, especially clothiers, linen workers, wool merchants, and dyers. Red dye was locally derived from the madder root. Purple, the only naturally colorfast dye in antiquity, came from murex shells and was coveted by the wealthy. Lydia, Paul’s disciple and host in Philippi, was a dealer in purple cloth from Thyatira (Acts 16:14). Thyatira’s other significant guilds included bakers, tanners, potters, coppersmiths, and slave traders.

The fourth of the seven churches of Revelation, Thyatira is commended for its good deeds but is criticized for tolerating the false teacher Jezebel (Rev. 2:18–29).

In Babylonian mythology (particularly the Enuma Elish), Tiamat is a goddess, the personification of the salt waters. The gods are the offspring of Tiamat and Apsu, the underground freshwaters. Disturbed by the behavior of the gods, Apsu decided to destroy them, but they killed him first. When Tiamat tried to take vengeance, Marduk, the god of Babylon, killed her and made the earth and sky from her body. The fighting among the gods shows that the gods are not good, and no god is all-powerful, typical traits of polytheism. Fighting against watery chaos was a common motif in the ancient Near East (e.g., Pss. 89:10; 74:14; 104:26).

A city founded on the western coast of the Sea of Galilee in AD 20 by Herod Antipas to replace Sepphoris as the new capital of Galilee. It was the administrative center of one of the five toparchies in Galilee. The city was named after the Roman emperor Tiberius, the successor of Augustus. The Gospel of John mentions Tiberias only in passing, noting that people from Tiberias traveled in boats to search for Jesus (John 6:23; cf. references to the Sea of Galilee as the “Sea of Tiberias” in John 6:1; 21:1). Herod built the city on top of a gravesite, rendering it unclean, and he had to compel people to settle there. He included non-Jews, poor people, and former slaves as part of its inhabitants.

Tiberias was a cosmopolitan city but still in its infancy of Hellenization. The city was governed by a polis, or council of six hundred men, administered by a group of ten, and headed by an elected leader called an “archon.” It had an agora, stadium, prayer house, and palace. According to rabbinic literature, the city was known for its fishing industry and textile production (y. Pesaḥ 4.2; b. Sukkah 20b). During the First Jewish Revolt, Josephus made Tiberias the base for his defense of Galilee (Josephus, J.W. 2.572–73), and Vespasian spared the city when it surrendered without resistance (Josephus, J.W. 3.453–61).

The Roman emperor during the time of Jesus’ ministry, he reigned in the years AD 14–37. Tiberius was adopted by his predecessor, Augustus, in an act that paved the way for Tiberius to ascend to the headship of the empire. All references to “Caesar” in the Gospels are to Tiberius (except Luke 2:1). The first mention of Tiberius states that the ministry of John the Baptist was taking place “in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar” (Luke 3:1). It is noteworthy that each of the remaining Gospel references to Tiberius concerns the issue of paying taxes. All three Synoptic Gospels give an account of a debate between Jesus and certain religious leaders about paying taxes to Caesar, with Jesus indicating that they indeed should be paid (Matt. 22:15–22; Mark 12:13–17; Luke 20:20–26). In contrast, when Jesus is later on trial before Pilate, the assembled crowd alleges that Jesus opposed the payment of taxes to Tiberius Caesar (Luke 23:2).

The city where David took a great amount of spoils of bronze, which Solomon later used in the temple (1 Chron. 18:8). The city is called “Betah” in the parallel account (2 Sam. 8:8 NASB, NRSV, KJV; see NIV mg.). Some scholars associate it with Tebah (Gen. 22:24), and the NIV uses “Tebah” in both 1 Chron. 18:8 and 2 Sam. 8:8. See also Tebah.

The son of Ginath. After the death of King Zimri of Israel, Israel split into two factions, the stronger one supporting Omri for the throne of Israel, the other supporting Tibni (r.  882–878 BC). After four years of struggle, the rivalry ended with Tibni’s death (1 Kings 16:21–22).

The king of Goyim, one of four kingdoms that raided Canaan during the time of Abraham (Gen. 14:1, 9). After they plundered the region and kidnapped Lot, Abraham successfully defeated them and regained what they had taken. His name has been connected with the name of four Hittite kings (Tudhaliya). See also Goyim.

The founder of the Neo-Assyrian Empire (r. 744–727 BC), Tig-lath-pileser (in the Bible, also known as “Pul”) annexed conquered territories and started the practice of deporting populations to minimize national sentiments of resistance. He took tribute from Menahem (2 Kings 15:19–20), captured the Transjordan and other tribes of Israel (1 Chron. 5:26; 2 Kings 15:29), and conquered Babylon. King Ahaz of Judah appealed to him for help and paid him tribute.

A variant of “Tig-lath-pileser,” the name of an Assyrian king. The variant occurs only in 1–2 Chronicles (1 Chron. 5:6, 26; 2 Chron. 28:20), where many versions substitute “Tiglath-pileser.” See also Tiglath-pileser III.

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

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

(1) The father of Shallum, husband of Huldah the prophetess (2 Kings 22:14). In 2 Chron. 34:22 the name is “Tokhath.” (2) The father of Jahzeiah, one of the four men who opposed the call to put away foreign wives after the return from exile (Ezra 10:15).

The father-in-law of the prophetess Huldah (2 Chron. 34:22). In 2 Kings 22:14 the name is “Tikvah.”

The fourth of the four sons of Shimon, from the tribe of Judah (1 Chron. 4:20).

The father of the blind beggar Bartimaeus, whom Jesus healed at Jericho (Mark 10:46).

A small, handheld musical instrument, probably a small hand drum that may have had bells or small pieces of metal around its perimeter. It was used as part of the music and dancing that accompanied festivals (Isa. 5:12), farewells (Gen. 31:27), worship (Pss. 81:2; 149:3; 150:4), songs of triumph (Exod. 15:20), prophetic ecstasy (1 Sam. 10:5), and the procession of the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6:5). Some English versions (e.g., KJV, ESV, NRSV) use the terms “tabret” and “tambourine.” See also Music, Instruments, Dancing.

The father of the blind beggar Bartimaeus, whom Jesus healed at Jericho (Mark 10:46).

(1) A concubine of Eliphaz (Esau’s son by Adah) and the mother of Amalek (Gen. 36:12; 1 Chron. 1:36 may also refer to this woman). (2) A sister of Lotan and daughter of Seir the Horite (Gen. 36:22; 1 Chron. 1:39). She may be identical with the Timna of Gen. 36:12. Seir fathered the inhabitants of Edom who preceded Esau (Gen. 36:20). (3) An Edomite chief (Gen. 36:40; 1 Chron. 1:51), perhaps descended from Eliphaz (cf. 1 Chron. 1:36). Alternatively, the references in Gen. 36:40–43 (// 1 Chron. 1:51–54) may pertain to geographical areas occupied by Esau’s clan.

(1) A town assigned to Judah located on the northern boundary of Judah between Beth Shemesh and north of Ekron. It is the same Timnah originally assigned to Dan (Josh. 15:10; 19:43). In the time of judges it belonged to the Philistines, and here Samson took his first wife (Judg. 14). In the time of King Ahaz it belonged to Judah but was taken by the Philistines (2 Chron. 28:18). It is identified as modern Tell el-Batashi, three miles south of Gezer, or Khirbet Tibneh (two miles southeast). (2) A village in the southern hill country of Judah located southeast of Hebron and stated to be near Gibeah (Josh. 15:57). This is where the patriarch Judah met his disguised daughter-in-law, Tamar, on the way to Timnah (Gen. 38:12–14).

(1) A town assigned to Judah located on the northern boundary of Judah between Beth Shemesh and north of Ekron. It is the same Timnah originally assigned to Dan (Josh. 15:10; 19:43). In the time of judges it belonged to the Philistines, and here Samson took his first wife (Judg. 14). In the time of King Ahaz it belonged to Judah but was taken by the Philistines (2 Chron. 28:18). It is identified as modern Tell el-Batashi, three miles south of Gezer, or Khirbet Tibneh (two miles southeast). (2) A village in the southern hill country of Judah located southeast of Hebron and stated to be near Gibeah (Josh. 15:57). This is where the patriarch Judah met his disguised daughter-in-law, Tamar, on the way to Timnah (Gen. 38:12–14).

Two names for the town given to Joshua as an inheritance after the Israelites had divided the land into tribal allotments. Joshua had specifically requested Timnath Serah, and he built up the town and settled there (Josh. 19:49–50). After Joshua had passed away, he was buried at Timnath Serah. The town is said to be located “in the hill country of Ephraim, north of Mount Gaash” (Josh. 24:30; Judg. 2:9). The spelling in Judges, “Timnath Heres,” means “territory of the sun” and is likely the original form.

Two names for the town given to Joshua as an inheritance after the Israelites had divided the land into tribal allotments. Joshua had specifically requested Timnath Serah, and he built up the town and settled there (Josh. 19:49–50). After Joshua had passed away, he was buried at Timnath Serah. The town is said to be located “in the hill country of Ephraim, north of Mount Gaash” (Josh. 24:30; Judg. 2:9). The spelling in Judges, “Timnath Heres,” means “territory of the sun” and is likely the original form.

An inhabitant of or person from the town of Timnah. Samson’s father-in-law was a Timnite (Judg. 15:6). The town was located in the tribe of Judah and was on the Israelite and Philistine border.

One of the seven men chosen to help with food distribution in the Jerusalem church (Acts 6:1–6). Tradition suggests that he was among the seventy disciples whom Jesus sent out (cf. Luke 10:1), a bishop of Bostra in Arabia, and a martyr at Basrah.

One of Paul’s faithful companions who proved himself as a valuable coworker (e.g., 1 Cor. 4:17; 16:10; Phil. 2:19–24). Many think that Timothy responded to Paul’s preaching during the first missionary journey, explaining the frequent references to Timothy as Paul’s “son” (1 Cor. 4:17; Phil. 2:22; 1 Tim. 1:2; 2 Tim. 1:2). Paul circumcised Timothy because he had a Greek father and Jewish mother. He ministered with Paul from the second missionary journey (Acts 16) to late in Paul’s life (2 Timothy), probably about twenty years. Timothy is not mentioned in much of Acts 16, an expression of Luke’s deference to the most prominent members of the missionary team, Paul and Silas. In Acts 19:22 Luke refers to Timothy as Paul’s “helper,” one who serves. This designation and Luke’s silence in Acts 16, however, should not be taken to mean that Timothy, who clearly has a subordinate role to Paul, had menial roles and functions.

Titles and ministry assignments demonstrate Timothy’s important role in Pauline mission. Paul calls Timothy a “brother” (2 Cor. 1:1; Col. 1:1; 1 Thess. 3:2; Philem. 1), “my co-worker” (Rom. 16:21), a “co-worker in God’s service” (1 Thess. 3:2 [textual variant: “servant of God”]), and “servant of Christ Jesus” with Paul (Phil. 1:1) and refers to him metaphorically as a “soldier” and “hardworking farmer” (2 Tim. 2:3, 6). Paul probably includes Timothy among the “apostles of Christ” in 1 Thess. 2:6, a reference to his role as a qualified ambassador of the gospel, not as an apostle in the technical sense. Paul sent Timothy out on ministry assignments to difficult places (e.g., Thessalonica and Corinth [see 1–2 Timothy]).

Apparently, Timothy worked alongside Paul a great deal of the time and was well respected in many locations, because Paul identifies Timothy as cosender of six letters: 2 Corinthians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, and Philemon. He was also with Paul during the writing of Romans and 1 Corinthians. Mentioned as released from prison in Heb. 13:23, he was an acquaintance of the author of Hebrews.

Anklets of silver or gold, listed among luxuries in the KJV of Isa. 3:18 (NIV: “bangles”). These chains worn above the ankles, probably ornamented with bells, tinkled as the women walked. God’s removal of these, along with other ostentatious adornments (Isa. 3:18–23), represents his promise to humiliate those in Judah who have oppressed the poor.

(1) A city on the west bank of the Euphrates River, about seventy miles south of Carchemish. This important river crossing was the northeastern limit of Solomon’s kingdom (1 Kings 4:24). (2) The site of a savage slaughter by Israelite King Menahem (2 Kings 15:16). The earliest Greek translation suggests a corruption and reads “Tappuah” (REB, RSV, TEV); however, the LXX reads “Tirzah.”

The last of the seven sons of Japheth and the clan name of his descendants (Gen. 10:2; 1 Chron. 1:5). These descendants are thought to be part of the Sea Peoples (known as the Turscha in Egyptian inscriptions) who sailed and attacked throughout the Aegean and the eastern Mediterranean.

One of the clans of scribes at Jabez, along with the Shimeathites and the Sucathites. They were Kenites descended from Hammath (1 Chron. 2:55).

In Ezek. 24:17, 23 the KJV translates the Hebrew word pe’er as “tire,” referring to a turban (NIV, NRSV).

The Egyptian pharaoh (r. 690–664 BC) who aided King Hezekiah’s campaign in Judah against the Assyrian king Sennacherib (2 Kings 19:9; Isa. 37:9). His title “king of Cush” reveals his Nubian (Sudanese) roots.

One of the sons of Caleb and his concubine Maakah (1 Chron. 2:48).

The third of the four sons of Jehallelel, a descendant of Judah (1 Chron. 4:16).

The official title used for the Persian governor in Judah. The KJV transliterates the Hebrew, but most modern translations, like the NIV, give the reading “governor” (Ezra 2:63; Neh. 7:65, 70; 8:9; 10:1).

(1) Joshua conquered the city of Tirzah (Josh. 12:24), which then was inherited by the half-tribe of Manasseh in its Cisjordan territory. The city became important as the capital of the northern tribes after Israel divided between north and south. Jeroboam’s son died in Tirzah, and Baasha, Ehud, and Zimri ruled Israel from there (1 Kings 14:17; 15:33; 16:6, 15). When Omri became king, he built the city of Samaria, and six years into his reign he moved the capital to there (1 Kings 16:23).

The Bible treats Tirzah again as politically important only in the last failing years of the northern kingdom, in connection with Menahem (2 Kings 15:14–16). The city enjoyed a reputation for particular beauty, and it is used in Song of Songs as a positive comparison with the young woman: “You are as beautiful as Tirzah, my darling, as lovely as Jerusalem, as majestic as troops with banners” (Song 6:4).

(2) One of the five daughters of Zelophehad (Num. 26:33; Josh. 17:3), who died with no sons. His daughters successfully lobbied the leaders of Israel for a share of the family inheritance (Num. 27:1–11).

The only Tishbite listed in the Bible is the prophet Elijah (1 Kings 17:1; 21:17, 28; 2 Kings 1:3, 8; 9:36). Tishbe was located in Gilead, which is in Transjordanian Manasseh. Perhaps there is a connection between Tishbe and the storm god Teshub, with Elijah being the anti-Teshub.

An offering of a tenth of the whole. Abram gives Melchizedek a tenth (Gen. 14:20; Heb. 7:2–9), and Jacob promises God a tenth (Gen. 28:22). These occasions reflect a practice already established in patriarchal times.

Under Moses, Israel is to give God a tithe of all its crops, flocks, and herds (Lev. 27:30–32). These tithes are received by the Levites for their sustenance; they in turn tithe from all that they have received (Num. 18:25–32). Deuteronomy specifies a yearly tithe eaten by the worshipers and every three years a storehouse tithe to provide for the Levites and for aliens, the fatherless, and widows (Deut. 14:22–29). Hezekiah (2 Chron. 31:5–8) and, later, Nehemiah (Neh. 10:37–38; 12:44–47; 13:10–13) reestablish this system. Malachi warns against slackness in tithing (Mal. 3:8–10).

Amos uses irony to underline that tithing cannot replace righteousness (Amos 4:4). Similarly, Jesus condemns scribes and Pharisees for neglecting justice, mercy, and faithfulness while tithing meticulously; instead, they should practice all of these (Matt. 23:23; cf. Luke 11:42; 18:11–12).

(1) Joseph, called “Barsabbas,” also known by the name “Justus.” He, along with Matthias, was considered to take the place among the apostles vacated by Judas Iscariot (Acts 1:23). (2) Titius (in some manuscripts “Titus”) Justus, a “worshiper of God” in Corinth with whom Paul lodged in his home near the synagogue (Acts 18:7). (3) Jesus Justus, a Jewish Christian coworker with Paul who sent greetings to Colossae (Col. 4:11).

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

Paul’s long-term coworker from the ministry in Antioch (Gal. 2:1, 3; cf. Acts 13:1–5) to near the time of Paul’s death. He became a living object lesson, confirming that the gospel did not require the circumcision of Gentile Christian men (Gal. 2). Though a subordinate of Paul, Titus was Paul’s valued partner and fellow worker in the gospel (2 Cor. 8:23) who shared the same ministry pattern and values (12:18). Paul must have considered Titus a trusted colleague, since Titus became responsible for the collection intended for the poor in Jerusalem (2 Cor. 8:6) and was the courier of a letter to the problem-filled church in Corinth, 2 Corinthians (8:16–17). Later, Paul left Titus in Crete to complete important work there (Titus). Titus went on to minister in Dalmatia (2 Tim. 4:10) at some subsequent time.

A title designating a place of origin or habitation describing Joha, one of David’s mighty warriors (1 Chron. 11:45). The location of this place of origin in the Transjordan is unknown.

A Levite in the Kohathite clan, from which David designated temple musicians. He was the son of Zuph and an ancestor of Samuel (1 Chron. 6:34). The parallel list reads “Nahath” (1 Chron. 6:26), and 1 Sam. 1:1 gives the name as “Tohu.”

A land located in southern Hauran to which Jepthah fled from his half brothers and where the elders of Gilead found him (Judg. 11:3, 5). Tob supplied twelve thousand warriors to the Ammonite king Hanun in an unsuccessful campaign against David (2 Sam. 10:6–8). Some scholars identify the location as modern et-Taiyibeh, about twelve miles east of Ramoth Gilead, between Bozrah and Edrei, near the source of the Yarmuk River.

One of the Levites who instructed the people of Judah about the law under King Jehoshaphat (2 Chron. 17:8). The name is likely a scribal incidence of dittography, combining the previous two names in the list, “Adonijah” and “Tobijah.”

(1) An ancestor of a family that could not prove its Israelite lineage after the exile (Ezra 2:60; Neh. 7:62). (2) An Ammonite, perhaps governor, who resisted Nehemiah’s efforts to rebuild Jerusalem’s walls (Neh. 2:10, 19; 6). He and his associates Sanballat and Geshem appealed to the Persian king but ultimately were unsuccessful. Even later, Nehemiah deposed a priest, Eliashib, who was renting rooms at the temple to Tobiah (13:4, 7). Many believe that the Tobiah family mentioned in the Lachish ostraca and even later extrabiblical sources are people connected with his family.

(1) One of the Levites sent out by Jehoshaphat to instruct the people about the law (2 Chron. 17:8). (2) One of three exiles who had returned from Babylon and from whom Zechariah received gold and silver to form a crown for the high priest Joshua, to be placed in the temple as a memorial (Zech. 6:9–14).

(1) A village in the territory of the descendants of Simeon (1 Chron. 4:32 [KJV: “Tochen”]). The location is unknown. (2) In the KJV, “token” is used to indicate what is, in most modern translations, a “sign” (e.g., Gen. 9:12–17; Ps. 86:17; Mark 14:44).

(1) The third of Gomer’s three sons and a grandson of Japheth (Gen. 10:3; 1 Chron. 1:6). (2) Beth Togarmah was a region inhabited by the descendants of Togarmah; it was known for its war horses (Ezek. 27:14; 38:6). See also Beth Togarmah.

The son of Zuph and the father of Elihu, he was an ancestor of Samuel (1 Sam. 1:1).

The king of Hammath who sent his son Joram to bring tribute to David after the defeat of their common enemy, Hadadezer, the king of Zobah. He is called “Toi” in 2 Sam. 8:9–10 (NIV: “Tou”), “Tou” in 1 Chron. 18:9–10.

(1) A village in the territory of the descendants of Simeon (1 Chron. 4:32 [KJV: “Tochen”]). The location is unknown. (2) In the KJV, “token” is used to indicate what is, in most modern translations, a “sign” (e.g., Gen. 9:12–17; Ps. 86:17; Mark 14:44).

The father-in-law of the prophetess Huldah (2 Chron. 34:22). In 2 Kings 22:14 the name is “Tikvah.”

(1) One of the four sons of Issachar, he was the ancestor of the Tolaite clan and of 22,600 warriors during the reign of David (Gen. 46:13; Num. 26:23; 1 Chron. 7:1–2). (2) A minor judge from the tribe of Issachar. He was the son of Puah and lived in Shamir, in the hill country of Ephraim. He ruled for twenty-three years (Judg. 10:1–2).

A town in the territory of Simeon (1 Chron. 4:29). In Josh. 15:30; 19:4 the town is called “Eltolad” (Josh. 15:30; 19:4).

The clan of Issachar descended from Tola (Num. 26:23–25).

In the Roman Empire, tax collectors (KJV: “publicans”) were employed to help collect taxes in the provinces. People bid for the job of tax collector, and they were compensated by collecting more than the required tax from the people. Tax collectors were despised by Jews as greedy because of the excessive profits they reaped. They also were counted as traitors because they worked for the Romans. In the NT, tax collectors often are associated with Gentiles and sinners (Matt. 5:46–47; 11:19; 21:32).

Jesus was criticized by the Jewish leaders for eating with “tax collectors and sinners” (Matt. 9:11). Jesus welcomed and taught tax collectors (Luke 5:29; 15:1). Matthew, one of Jesus’ disciples, was a tax collector (Matt. 10:3). Zacchaeus was a “chief tax collector,” which probably indicates that he was contracted with the Romans to collect taxes over a specific area, and he supervised others who did the actual collecting (Luke 19:2).

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John explain that Joseph of Arimathea, “a prominent member of the Council” (Mark 15:43), the Sanhedrin, directed the process of taking Jesus’ body from the place of crucifixion to his own tomb, a “tomb cut in the rock, one in which no one had yet been laid” (Luke 23:53). Since Joseph was a “rich man” (Matt. 27:57), he could afford a stone tomb of this type. All the Gospel writers indicate that the tomb had a stone at its entrance, a common feature of such tombs; both Matthew (27:60) and Mark (16:4) underscore the size of the stone.

Matthew provides unique details about Jesus’ tomb in an effort to defend the authenticity of Jesus’ resurrection. Only Matthew records that Pilate, in deference to the Pharisees, assigned a guard of soldiers to secure the tomb. He also notes that the soldiers put a seal on the tomb (27:62–66), not a sealant but rather an official Roman insignia, to indicate that no one should disturb the tomb. Also, Matthew alone explains the alibi that the Jews devised when these attempts to secure the tomb proved unsuccessful (28:11–15).

On the morning of Jesus’ resurrection, some women, including Mary Magdalene, were the first to enter the tomb and note that Jesus’ body was no longer there (Mark 16:1–6; John 20:1–2). John records that Peter and another “disciple, the one Jesus loved” (likely John himself) also entered the tomb (20:2–8), the latter doing so only after “he bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there” (20:5). The low entrance that this statement implies is a known feature of rock-hewn tombs from this time period.

Two main sites in Jerusalem have been proposed as the location of Jesus’ tomb. The site on which the Church of the Holy Sepulchre sits is favored by archaeologists because of its early traditional attestation. The Garden Tomb pre-sents more visible features that could correlate with the biblical accounts but lacks traditional attestation.

Pure gold instruments among the articles of tabernacle and temple equipment (1 Kings 7:49; 2 Chron. 4:21). They are associated with the lampstand. In Isa. 6:6, a seraph uses tongs to take a burning coal from the altar.

The word “tongue” has several senses in both Testaments. In the OT, lashon refers to the physical organ (Judg. 7:5; Job 20:12; 41:1), the physical tongue that creates speech (2 Sam. 23:2; Job 6:30), and the physical organ in reference to individuals as they profess before God (Isa. 45:23; cf. Rom. 14:11; Phil. 2:11).

The word “tongue” frequently refers to language (Gen. 10:5; Neh. 13:24; Isa. 28:11; cf. 1 Cor. 14:21). Related to this, the word refers to speech as deceitful (Ps. 52:2), as speaking strife (31:20 KJV, RSV), or as that which praises God (35:28). The tongue sings (Ps. 51:14) and extols (66:17).

The tongue is able to produce very powerful speech that can bring life and death (Prov. 18:21). To guard one’s speech is to be trouble-free (21:23). Soft and forbearing speech is persuasive and wins the day rather than aggravates (25:15). Flattering speech seems favorable but will be disregarded in the end (28:23).

The speech of God is a consuming fire (Isa. 30:27). The mute will have speech when all things are set right in the eschaton (35:6).

In the OT, the word “tongue” is used in parallel with several other words. The physical organ is parallel to lips (Ps. 12:4), mouth (Job 33:2; Pss. 10:7; 50:19), or throat (Ps. 5:9, where the tongue is the source of flattery).

A similar Hebrew word, sapah, has several senses, among them “lip” (and so also often of the edge or shore of a body of water), and can refer to the language produced by lips. It is sometimes placed in parallel with lashon (Ps. 12:4).

In the NT, the word glōssa refers to the physical organ (Mark 7:33–35) and language (Acts 2:11; 1 Cor. 14:21 [heteroglōssos]) and can refer to the miraculous gift of languages (Mark 16:17; Acts 2:4; 10:46; 19:6; 1 Cor. 12–14). Luke also uses the word in the unusual description of the gift of languages coming on the disciples—tongues of fire resting on each one of them (Acts 2:3).

Finally, James, writing in the style of OT wisdom literature, notes that an uncontrolled tongue—unbridled speech—is not indicative of the people of God (James 1:26–27) and is ultimately destructive (3:5–10). See also Speech Impediment.

Implements utilized for the purpose of craftsmanship in some manner, whether in agriculture, commerce, or artistry.

Materials

It can be assumed that early Israelites used tools made of wood, bones, and ivory for the handles, and stone for the working part of the tool. Stone tools were utilized for pounding, grinding, and cutting. Many examples of stone tools have been discovered throughout the ancient Near East. Early farmers and workers used some of the more basic tools, such as hammers, pestles, knives, and chisels.

Some tools were used almost exclusively for the construction of other tools. Spherical instruments made out of diorite or some other very hard substance were used to fashion an instrument into a usable shape. Thanks to their hardness and round shape, they rarely splintered and could be used with reasonable force.

Only certain types of stone could be turned into a cutting utensil. The stone had to have both a requisite hardness and a crystalline nature to be transformed into a blade. Only chert and flint meet such criteria, but only flint was readily available to the nomad, being found in the form of nodules and small cobbles in deposits of limestone. Because of flint’s brittleness, the artisan had to take great care in the amount of pressure applied in making a knife. The fact that so many examples of flint knives are no larger than a few centimeters suggests that this was easier said than done. Flint knives were used by the Israelites in sacred rituals, including circumcision (Josh. 5:2).

Metals began to be used for utensils at roughly the same time Israel entered the promised land. Bronze, an alloy of copper and tin, was used for weaponry and for everyday utensils. The molten alloy was poured into molds made from stone and then shaped and formed by a smith. A similar process was used for iron in the periods following the institution of the monarchy. Early Israel apparently had few if any blacksmiths capable of such work, since the Scriptures record that the Israelites went to the Philistines for production of their iron tools (1 Sam. 13:19). Even after the advent of alloys, however, there seems to have been a preference for the more primitive flint knives, especially in sacred ceremonies, possibly because flint maintained a sharper edge longer, or perhaps because there was a certain taboo associated with the mixing of metals. The application of the profane to the sacred would have rendered the ceremony unfit for God.

Types of Tools

Knives. Knives were made in various sizes. The smallest version is referred to in Jehoiakim’s destruction of Jeremiah’s manuscript in Jer. 36:23 (some English versions distinguish it as a “scribe’s knife” [NIV] or “penknife” [NRSV]). This same knife (Heb. ta’ar) also was used for shaving (Num. 6:5) and appears in imagery related to sharpness or exactness (Ps. 52:2; Isa. 7:20). Between six inches and a foot long would have been the more normal length of knives used for everyday tasks such as butchering (Gen. 22:6).

Agricultural tools. The plow came in various sizes and forms. In the more fertile areas, plowshares were unnecessary, and a smaller utensil similar to a hoe was used simply to break up the topsoil (1 Sam. 13:21). The instrument also was used on more uneven terrain, where a typical animal-drawn plowshare would not work. It was actually this instrument that would have been turned into a weapon of war or, in the case of everlasting peace, transformed back into a farming utensil (Isa. 2:4; Mic. 4:3). In more arid regions, where the soil was more hardened and difficult to break up, the larger plowshare was used. In a fashion well known in the Western world, the larger plowshare was harnessed to a beast of burden and guided through the farmer’s field to prepare the land for sowing.

Harvesting involved the utilization of various tools. Grain was first cut with a sickle (Jer. 50:16). In the ancient Near East, the sickle handle typically was short and could be held in one hand. The blade usually was composed of a jawbone or curved shaft fitted with pieces of flint or other sharp objects. As an instrument of harvest, the sickle also became a picture of judgment and ingathering (Joel 3:13; Mark 4:29). For harvesting grapes, a pruning hook, which was very similar in appearance to a sickle but smaller, was used (Isa. 2:4).

Hand tools. Several small hand tools were similar to their modern expressions but were used for different purposes. An awl is used to bore holes. In the ancient Near East, this tool was made of stone, bone, or metal. One of the more distinctive uses for this tool in ancient times was to pierce ears (Exod. 21:6; Deut. 15:17). Saws were made with a wooden handle on either one end or both ends. An ancient tradition says that Isaiah was sawn in two (cf. Heb. 11:37). Axes were used for felling trees (Deut. 19:5; Matt. 3:10) but also for cutting stones and removing them from quarries (1 Kings 6:7). Early models were crafted from stone, but by the time of Israel’s nationhood the implement was almost always made of iron. This is demonstrated at places where an ax head is referred to with barzel, the Hebrew word for “iron” (Deut. 19:5; 2 Kings 6:5).

Construction and craftsmanship tools. When it came to building and craftsmanship, the Israelites again used instruments quite similar to those employed by modern counterparts. The Israelites used hammers (Isa. 44:12) made of stone, with wooden handles, for large construction jobs. They also had several types of chisels and other carving utensils (Exod. 32:4; Deut. 15:17). For hammering these chisels and carving utensils, a large wooden mallet, similar to those used by craftspeople today, probably was used. A plumb line was used for ensuring that walls were straight. This simple device consisted of a length of string with a weight tied to the end. The plumb line was held up against a wall as it was being built in order to determine if the wall was consistently vertical. As such, it served as an appropriate image for whether Israel was straight in relation to its covenant with God (Amos 7:7–9). Potters used a pottery wheel (Jer. 18:3), and weavers used a loom with a web in order to create intricate patterns of cloth (Judg. 16:13–14). Blacksmiths used bellows, tongs, and hammers designed especially for their work (Isa. 44:12).

By the time of the NT, artisans were far more dependent on iron for most of their tools. Advances in smelting and in the manipulation of the alloys allowed the crude iron of previous eras to begin approaching the tempered steel of the Middle Ages. This permitted more flexibility in how utensils such as hammers could be used and allowed for more effective chisels to be created. As a result, craftsmanship in stone, marble, and other hard surfaces became more prevalent, and ossuaries, statues, and building facades became more ornate and intricate in design. Multiple examples of such craftwork have been unearthed in archaeological digs.

One of the sites that the author of Deuteronomy uses to help orient the reader in regard to the place where Moses shared the law with the Israelites (Deut. 1:1). The location and identification of Tophel is still uncertain, but some believe that it is associated with et-Tafileh, a site in Jordan between Kerak and Petra.

Topheth, whose name is associated with the Hebrew word for “spit,” was located in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to the immediate southwest of Jerusalem. At times, it served as the city dump, where trash was burned. In the NT period, the valley was known as Gehenna, which was associated with hell. Josiah had destroyed this place because it was the location of the false worship of the foreign god Molek (2 Kings 23:10–11), but the idolatrous worship site must have been rebuilt. In the time of Jeremiah, some Israelites performed child sacrifice in this location, so the prophet announced judgment against them (Jer. 7:30–34; 19:6–15).

The Hebrew word torah most broadly means “teaching” or “instruction.” In the OT, torah most commonly refers to the collection of teachings divinely revealed to Moses by God. This collection of teachings preserved in the Pentateuch became authoritative and binding, not only for the community of Hebrews wandering in the Sinai Desert, but also for each successive generation with whom the covenant with Yahweh was renewed (Exod. 24; Deut. 4:5–14, 44).

The Torah of Moses

Thus, torah occurs often in combination with Moses’ name (“torah of Moses”), particularly in the Pentateuch, the Deuteronomistic History (Deuteronomy, Joshua through Kings), and Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles. Perhaps the use of Moses’ name in this way emphasizes the authority of the teachings by reminding readers of their connection to him. In the prophetic literature and Psalms, however, torah is more commonly used in combination with the special name for God revealed to Moses at the burning bush (“torah of Yahweh”). Perhaps the use of Yahweh’s special name in this case emphasizes the divine nature of the teachings given to Moses by God.

The meaning of torah in the OT is not uniform, however, and encompasses a range of related meanings. Torah sometimes refers to a more specific set of teachings within the corpus of Mosaic instructions. In some cases, torah seems to refer only to the Ten Commandments (Exod. 24; Deut. 4:44). In other cases, particularly in Leviticus and Numbers, torah can refer to a specific instruction pertaining to the people’s worship and service to God. For example, the specific regulation for how to carry out a burnt offering is a torah for the burnt offering (Lev. 6:9), and the instruction for how to carry out a Nazirite vow is a torah for the Nazirite vow (Num. 6:13).

A great deal of the Mosaic teaching in Exodus through Deuteronomy focuses on the community’s worship, offering specific instruction on things such as offerings, sacrifices, the distinction between clean and unclean, as well as instructions for constructing the ancient sanctuary, the tabernacle. Because the Levitical priests were leaders in the Israelite community’s worship, they were specifically charged with careful transmission and interpretation of torah (2 Kings 22:8; Mal. 2:7–8). Indeed, Levitical priests held an authoritative position in the Israelite community with regard to interpretations of torah. Accordingly, sometimes torah refers to a decision rendered by a priest, on behalf of Yahweh, when the application of an individual instruction is unclear. For example: “This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘Ask the priests what the law [torah] says: If someone carries consecrated meat in the fold of their garment, and that fold touches some bread or stew, . . . does it become consecrated?’ ” (Hag. 2:11–12 [cf. Deut. 17:8–13]). Priests who fail in their duties of transmission and interpretation of torah are charged with doing “violence to the law [torah]” and corrupting the people (Zeph. 3:4; see also Jer. 2:8; Ezek. 7:26; 22:26; Hos. 4:6).

Other Uses of Torah

Torah can also be a more general term for the direct command of God, apart from the teachings of Moses. For example, God said of Abraham that he “obeyed me and did everything I required of him, keeping my commands, my decrees and my instructions [torot]” (Gen. 26:5). Since Abraham died before the time of Moses, this reference to torah likely emphasizes Abraham’s faithful obedience to God’s specific instructions to him (cf. Gen. 12:1–4; 15:1–21).

Particularly in the prophetic literature, torah often refers to the standard of behavior with which Israel will be judged: “The people have broken my covenant and rebelled against my law [torah]” (Hos. 8:1 [cf. Isa. 1:10; 5:24; 8:16, 19–20; 30:9; Zech. 7:12]). In the prophetic texts, torah is often the basis for God’s indictment of the people, and yet torah also holds promise for the redemption of God’s people, when “I [God] will put my law [torah] in their minds and write it on their hearts” (Jer. 31:33).

In the book of Proverbs, torah usually refers to instructions given by a parent to a child: “Listen, my son, to your father’s instruction and do not forsake your mother’s teaching [torah]” (1:8). In this case, torah represents practical parental wisdom to direct everyday living. While the use of torah in Proverbs is not directly associated with the Mosaic teachings in the Pentateuch, the content of the teaching (torah) of the parent to the child in Proverbs is in alignment with the teachings of Moses to the Israelite community, particularly with the Ten Commandments. Indeed, parental instruction (torah) in the book of Proverbs includes a prohibition against dishonoring one’s parents (1:8; 10:1), violence or murder (1:11–12; 3:29), stealing (1:13; 10:2), adultery (2:16–19; 5:3–20), and lying (3:30; 6:12–15).

Overall, torah is presented not as a stale collection of restrictive rules in the OT, but rather as a joy and a delight: “The law [torah] of the Lord is perfect, refreshing the soul. The statutes of the Lord are trustworthy, making wise the simple. The precepts of the Lord are right, giving joy to the heart. The commands of the Lord are radiant, giving light to the eyes. . . . They are sweeter than honey” (Ps. 19:7–10). See also Law.

A highly combustible wooden stick, or an absorbent combustible material tied on the end of one and ignited. A torch can signify Yahweh’s covenant commitment (Gen. 15:17), be used to win an incredible victory (Judg. 7:16), picture revenge (Judg. 15:4), and assure Zion’s redemption (Isa. 62:1); it can describe four heavenly creatures (Ezek. 1:13), Jerusalem as God’s instrument (Zech. 12:6), an angelic warrior (Dan. 10:6), and a large star (Rev. 8:10). Soldiers and guards carried torches to find Jesus in the garden at night (John 18:3).

The king of Hammath who sent his son Joram to bring tribute to David after the defeat of their common enemy, Hadadezer, the king of Zobah. He is called “Toi” in 2 Sam. 8:9–10 (NIV: “Tou”), “Tou” in 1 Chron. 18:9–10.

In three places the KJV uses the word “tow” to translate Hebrew words (n’oret, pishtah) that refer to a fibrous stick that became highly flammable when peeled apart and used for tinder (Isa. 1:31). It was used as a torch and a wick for oil lamps (Isa. 43:17) and metaphorically as a symbol of weakness and temporality (Judg. 16:9).

Towers (or watchtowers) were circular or square stone structures, measuring about twenty-five feet in diameter, built at the corners of a wall (Jer. 31:38; cf. 2 Chron. 14:7; 26:9). They could be referred to as fortified citadels of a city (2 Kings 17:9; 2 Chron. 14:6; 26:9, 15; Neh. 3:1), strongholds (Judg. 9:51), or fortresses (2 Chron. 27:4). As a defense system, they provided enhancement to city walls and gates. Arrows and projectiles could be fired at enemies scaling the walls. As a communications system, they often served as signal stations where guards could watch for approaching enemies (2 Kings 9:17; 17:9; Isa. 21:12).

The primary military fortification of Jerusalem near the Herodian temple, also called the Antonia Fortress. The fortress was built in approximately AD 6 and served as a palatial residence for King Herod and a barracks for the Roman troops. In addition, Herod required the garments of the high priest be housed in the tower. The fortress, named by Herod after his friend Mark Antony, was actually a major renovation of an existing Maccabean fortification. The fortress was strategically located to overlook the temple so that a garrison could easily deal with any disturbance in the temple.

The tower is not specifically mentioned in the NT, but the Jewish historian Josephus describes it in detail (J.W. 5.238–46). The tower was built upon a rock, seventy-five feet high, overlooking the temple and its courtyards. Josephus describes the tower as being lavishly furnished like a palace, containing baths, courtyards, and spacious apartments. It was capable of housing numerous soldiers.

The tower may have served as an official residence for the Roman procurator. Thus, the tower’s courtyard has traditionally been considered the site of Jesus’ trial before Pilate (John 18:28; 19:13). However, Herod’s palace may have been used for the procurator and as a residence of the governor. The pavement beneath the modern convent Notre Dame de Sion was traditionally considered to be from the courtyard of the tower, but it has been dated to the second century by recent archaeological work.

The fortress was destroyed during Titus’s siege of Jerusalem in AD 70, and the modern site of the tower has yet to be determined conclusively.

A tower whose construction was begun in a town on the plain of Shinar (Gen. 11:1–9), although it is never actually called the “tower of Babel” in the Bible. The name “Babel” (Gen. 11:9) is likely a pun involving the Akkadian word for “gate of god” and the Hebrew word for “confuse.” Some scholars believe that “Babel” alludes to the city of Babylon. Most ancient structures described as towers would have been ziggurats, which are terraced pyramids with steps. Ziggurats were designed to be places where the gods could access land, much like a staircase. Interestingly, the builders’ plan in Gen. 11:1–9 actually worked, since God did come down into the city; however, they did not anticipate the consequences of their actions. Some commentators have suggested that this story is an etiology explaining the beginning of languages.

One of the towers in the wall of Jerusalem listed in Nehemiah’s description of the dedication of the rebuilt wall (Neh. 3:1; 12:39). “Meah” is the KJV transliteration of the Hebrew word me’ah, which means “hundred.” Thus, other versions identify the structure as the “Tower of the Hundred” (NIV, NRSV).

A fortified tower in Jerusalem mentioned twice in Nehemiah, once in the restoration of the wall (3:1) and again in the procession for its dedication (12:39). It is associated with the Tower of Hananel, which Jer. 31:38 and Zech. 14:10 confirm is located on the north side of Jerusalem, near the Fish Gate. Based on the name, it is likely that a substantial number of troops were placed here to guard the Fish Gate.

A tower of the second wall of Jerusalem, it was repaired by Malkijah son of Harim and Hasshub son of Pahath-Moab during the time of Nehemiah (Neh. 3:11; 12:38 [KJV: “tower of the furnaces”]). The tower was on the western portion of the wall and may have taken its name from its proximity to baking ovens on the “street of the bakers” (see Jer. 37:21).

Cities, towns, and villages were essential parts of a common civilization pattern shared by the ancient Near East and the Bible. Towns and cities were designed to provide the basic needs of security, shelter, and sustenance to enable their populations to engage in a variety of social, economic, religious, and political activities.

The urban picture of the biblical world is complicated by several factors. The first is the large span of time covered in the Bible. The urban chronology of Scripture begins at the moment of the first attempt at city building (Gen. 4:17) and ends with the revelation of the new Jerusalem, the city of God (Rev. 3:12; 21:2).

Moreover, the Bible is not concerned with providing a detailed commentary on the expansion of city and urban life. It is true that several of the great cities of the ancient Near East and the Greco-Roman world are mentioned in the pages of the Bible; however, many of the religious, social, economic, and political factors involved in the development of urban life are not identified or discussed. The archaeological record often suggests a more complex picture.

In addition, a wide variety of terms are used broadly and interchangeably in the Scriptures to describe settlement patterns and socio-urban structures. For example, the specific differences between a city, a town, and a village are not clearly identified in the biblical text. Normally, a city had a fortified wall or other type of defensive enclosure, while a town or village did not.

Furthermore, city status was not necessarily determined by size. Ancient cities were much smaller. During the reign of Solomon, Jerusalem covered about thirty-three acres. But by the time of Jesus it measured nearly two hundred acres. Jericho, the oldest city in Palestine, was no larger than ten acres. The archaeological record suggests that Jericho was occupied by at least 7000 BC. Hazor, one of the largest cities in the upper Galilee, covered 175 acres. The dimensions of Palestinian cities were minuscule compared to the great pagan cities such as Nineveh, Babylon, and Rome.

Archaeological Evidence

Archaeological evidence suggests that some of the chief concerns of city building remained constant over time. Cities were planted along main highways or trade routes. Often a city sat at important crossroads or intersections. An adequate water supply was necessary, as were raw materials for shelter and industry. The site had to be easy to defend and surrounded by adjacent agricultural land sufficient to sustain the population. All cities in the ancient Near East built walls and city gates. Most featured an acropolis or citadel and a working system of city streets. Many cities contained a sanctuary or high place where individuals could worship.

At least four major phases of urbanization in Palestine occurred during the biblical period.

Early Bronze Age II (3000–2700 BC). Although Jericho and other cities had their origin in the Chalcolithic period, the Early Bronze Age produced a significant expansion of urban life. Cities in this period included Megiddo, Ai, Gezer, Arad, Jericho, and others. Larger sites protected by fortifications with gates are characteristic of this period. Temples, fortified citadels, and residential houses were found arranged along streets and thoroughfares inside the city. The water supply became a community concern, and steps were taken to conserve runoff water into large reservoirs or cisterns. Such urban planning presupposes a social hierarchy in the differentiation of labor and need. Farmers, craftsmen, and traders, as well as priests and rulers, worked and lived side by side in the city.

Middle Bronze Age IIB (1750–1650 BC). In the second wave of urbanization, the Canaanites refortified and rebuilt older settlements such as Dan, Hazor, Megiddo, and Shechem. Other sites, such as Bethel and Beth Shemesh, were established as new settlements. Distinctive walls, fortifications, gates, and cultic architecture characterized this period. Mud-brick was a common construction material. Larger city-states controlled agricultural resources and ruled numerous villages and settlements within their immediate vicinity. These city-states often joined together in political alliances. Cuneiform documents from Mari and Hazor provide a glimpse into the social, cultural, and political life in the cities of this period. This wave of urbanization began to decline by the Late Bronze Age.

Iron Age II (1000–586 BC). Early Iron Age settlements developed alongside the declining Late Bronze cities as rough camps, simple enclosures, and villages in the highlands of Palestine. Later, during the monarchial period, some of the villages and cities expanded into full urban centers, following royal hierarchical and administrative blueprints. Cities contained administrative buildings, enhanced fortifications and gates, new water systems, and planned street systems offering systematic drainage. Housing generally followed a typical pattern. Stone became the construction material of choice. Both the united monarchy and the divided kingdoms of Israel and Judah established royal cities, administrative centers, fortified border cities, and fortresses. Urban life gravitated toward the upkeep of a central religious and economic royal administration.

Roman period. As a champion of all things Hellenic, Alexander the Great introduced the Greek city, or polis, into the oriental culture of the Levant. This new type of city, with its theaters, gymnasia, statues, and colonnades, served as a beacon of Greek civilization. Such cities attracted Greek settlers, traders, and local natives (Acts 18:1–3, 18–28; Rom. 16:3–5; 1 Cor. 16:19). The Greek agora (marketplace) replaced the Palestinian city gate as the center of trade and commerce. Sepphoris and the towns of the Decapolis were examples of this type of city in Palestine. The Romans imitated the Hellenistic city plan but emphasized one main north-south thoroughfare (cardo) and east-west streets. Building activity in Palestine flourished under Herod the Great (37–4 BC). He rebuilt, expanded, and renamed many Palestinian sites, such as Caesarea, Sebaste, and the Tower of Antonia in Jerusalem. Herod radically changed the landscape of Jerusalem, rebuilding there on a massive scale not only the palace but also the temple.

Old Testament

The common Hebrew word for “city,” ’ir, occurs 1,093 times in the OT. English versions normally translate the word as “city,” but sometimes “town” is used. The same term is found outside the Bible in one of the Lachish letters and as a cognate in several Semitic languages. The etymology of ’ir is not clear, but it may be related to the Sumerian word for “city,” uru. The word may have originally designated a fortified or protected place.

In the OT, ’ir can be applied to a wide range of settlements, including villages, towns, and capital cities regardless of size or location. For example, Deut. 3:5 speaks of cities fortified with high walls, gates, and bars in the same sentence with “rural towns” or “country settlements” [NIV: “unwalled villages”]. On the other hand, a distinction is made between a “walled city” and a “village” in Lev. 25:29, 31. In Num. 13:19 Moses specifically charges the spies with the task of determining whether the Canaanite cities are fortified or more like camps. Cities given to the Levites in Num. 35:1–8 also included the surrounding pasturelands connected with them. A number of times the OT speaks of the fields associated with a city or village (Lev. 25:34; Josh. 21:12; Neh. 11:25, 30).

Cities were also given special designations or names. Cities of refuge are so designated to provide protection for individuals who have committed accidental manslaughter (Num. 35:11; Josh. 20:2; 1 Chron. 6:57). Jericho was called “the City of Palms” (Deut. 34:3; 2 Chron. 28:15). Jerusalem was known as “the City of David” (1 Kings 3:1; 2 Chron. 5:2), “Zion” (Isa. 33:20; Zech. 8:3; Heb. 12:22), and “the holy city” (Isa. 52:1; Rev. 21:1).

Two other Hebrew terms are often translated “city.” The noun qeret occurs only five times in biblical poetry (Job 29:7; Prov. 8:3; 9:3, 14; 11:11). The noun qiryah is found twenty-nine times. It is sometimes translated “town” in the NIV (Deut. 2:36; Job 39:7; Isa. 25:2; Jer. 49:25; Hos. 7:12). The etymology of either word is uncertain, but both may be derived from qir (“wall”). In many cases qiryah functions as a synonym of ’ir.

In Deut. 2:36 and 3:4 qiryah is used to designate the towns taken by the Israelites in Transjordan. Heshbon is identified in Num. 21:28 as the “town” (qiryah; NIV: “city”) of Sihon. The word qiryah is also found in the names of several towns, such as Kiriath Jearim (Josh. 15:9) and Kiriath Sepher (Josh. 15:15). Hebron was originally Kiriath Arba (Gen. 23:2; 35:27), and Balaam rode to Kiriath Huzoth (Num. 22:39). Shaveh Kiriathaim (Gen. 14:5) and Kiriathaim (Num. 32:37) contain a form of qiryah.

Smaller communities were called “villages” or “settlements” (Gen. 25:16; Lev. 25:31; Deut. 2:23). Some of these were connected to a larger city or provincial center. The book of Joshua commonly speaks of a city or town and “its villages” (Josh. 13–19; cf. 1 Chron. 6:26). In addition, the Hebrew phrase “daughters of” (i.e., settlements) is frequently used to identify smaller villages under the jurisdiction of a larger city and dependent upon it (Num. 21:25, 32; 32:42; Josh. 15:45, 47; Neh. 11:25–31).

New Testament

The Greek word polis occurs 163 times in the NT and is translated as “town” or “city.” Several sites are called polis: Nazareth (Matt. 2:23), Capernaum (Luke 4:31), Arimathea (Luke 23:51), Bethlehem (John 7:42), and others. Jerusalem is called “the holy city” (Matt. 4:5; cf. Rev. 3:12), “the city of the Great King” (Matt. 5:35), and “the city of the living God” (Heb. 12:22). During his ministry, Jesus preached in the towns of Galilee (Matt. 11:1) and Samaria (Matt. 10:5). In the book of Acts, Paul served as an evangelist to the Greek and Roman cities in the Mediterranean world.

A town on the western bank of the Jordan River near Zarethan, just below where the Jabbok River empties into the Jordan. It was here that the waters of the Jordan stopped so that the Israelites under the leadership of Joshua could cross into Canaan further to the south, opposite Jericho (Josh. 3:14–17). One interpretation of Hos. 6:7 takes Adam as the place where Israel broke the covenant (“at Adam”), which makes sense of the adverb sham (“there”) in this verse but lacks corroboration elsewhere; another interpretation understands Adam here as referring to the first human or to humankind (“like Adam”), which the LXX endorses by rendering ’adam as “man” (anthrōpos).

One of the five Roman provinces northeast of the Sea of Galilee, which was the northeastern extent of the kingdom of Herod the Great. The name “Traconitis” refers to the “rough, rocky” topography of this extremely desolate region. It was deeded to Herod the Great on the condition that he control the local bandits. Following Herod’s death in 4 BC, Traconitis was passed on to Herod Philip (Luke 3:1), brother of Herod Antipas. It later became a part of the Roman province of Syria.

One of the five Roman provinces northeast of the Sea of Galilee, which was the northeastern extent of the kingdom of Herod the Great. The name “Traconitis” refers to the “rough, rocky” topography of this extremely desolate region. It was deeded to Herod the Great on the condition that he control the local bandits. Following Herod’s death in 4 BC, Traconitis was passed on to Herod Philip (Luke 3:1), brother of Herod Antipas. It later became a part of the Roman province of Syria.

The practice of buying, selling, and trading goods is well attested in both Testaments. Listed among the items of trade in the Bible are textiles (Ezek. 27:24), metals (1 Kings 9:28; Ezek. 27:13; Rev. 18:12), spices (Jer. 6:20; Rev. 18:13), corn (1 Kings 5:11; Ezek. 27:17), animals (1 Kings 10:29), and wine (2 Chron. 2:15; Rev. 18:13).

Old Testament

Palestine rests in a strategic position between Egypt and Mesopotamia. Thus, major trade routes that predate the biblical writings are found throughout Palestine. That certain forms of commerce seem to just appear on the scene in the biblical narrative attests to the significance of commerce during the OT era. One such incident involves a caravan of Ishmaelites traveling from Gilead to Egypt (Gen. 37:25). Although the narrative is primarily interested in showing how Joseph ended up in Egypt, the reality that Ishmaelites (later called “Midianites” [Gen. 37:28]) travel at such great lengths for goods attests to the far-reaching impact of commerce at that time.

Traveling by land. By biblical times, three major north-south highways crossed Palestine. On the coast was the international coastal highway, sometimes referred to as the Way of the Sea (Lat. Via Maris) (see Isa. 9:1), although this is somewhat of a misnomer. This route began in Egypt and continued through to Gaza, Aphek, Megiddo, Hazor, Dan, and Damascus. Mentioned three times in the Bible (Num. 20:17; 21:22; Deut. 2:27), the King’s Highway began in the Gulf of Aqaba at Elath (northernmost point of the Red Sea) and ran north to Damascus. A major trade route in ancient times, the road eventually was lined with fortresses and rebuilt by the Roman emperor Trajan during the second century AD. The third major road was interregional but not international. This central interregional route ran from Shechem in the north to Beersheba in the south, making stops in Shiloh, Bethel, Ramah, Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and Hebron along the way.

The indication that Solomon had “seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines” (1 Kings 11:3) evidences various lines of commerce, both regionally and internationally. Marriage, particularly for kings, was arranged often for strategic purposes. One way to formalize an agreement of peace, safe passage, or commerce agreements was to offer a daughter in marriage. Solomon’s wives from Egypt, Moab, Ammon, Edom, Sidon, and Hittite areas (1 Kings 11:1) probably served both political and economic functions.

Traveling by sea. Although travel and trade by water (rivers and sea) cannot be ruled out, particularly in Egypt, the most significant commercial endeavors in the OT concern the main trade routes through Palestine. However, numerous examples of maritime commerce are evidenced in the OT. Among the most interesting examples of maritime commerce are the ships of Solomon, which would return intermittently with “gold, silver and ivory, and apes and baboons” (1 Kings 10:22). Despite the admonition given to the Israelite kings (Deut. 17:15–20), Solomon acquired horses and chariots from Egypt (1 Kings 10:28–29) by way of Kue (cf. Cilicia in the southeast of present-day Turkey). Thus, trade appeared to be international by both land and sea (cf. Gen. 37:25–28; 1 Kings 10:15; Isa. 23:8; Ezek. 27).

Revelation. The centralized geographical orientation of Palestine ensured that it had a unique role in the commercial trade of the ancient Near East. Perhaps this is why God gave specific revelation to Israel that applied to commercial affairs. The exhortation to “use honest scales and honest weights” when conducting business would have demonstrated the integrity of both Israel and Israel’s God (Lev. 19:35–36).

New Testament

The conquests of Alexander the Great catalyzed trade relationships between West and East (c. fourth century BC). Yet it would not be until the Roman consolidation of power in the western Mediterranean (Third Punic War, 149–146 BC) that commerce was greatly improved. The two-century period of peace, referred to as the Pax Romana (cf. Philo, Embassy 47; Plutarch, Mor. 317B), was one of the abiding legacies of the emperor Augustus (r. 27 BC–AD 14). Among the positive outcomes of Augustus’s rule were economic prosperity, improved communications, and stabilized government. The growing network of Roman roads and strict regulation on the seas improved the quality and conditions of travel between locations, thus improving communications and commercial opportunity throughout the empire (cf. Pliny the Elder, Nat. 14.1.2).

Contributing to the development of commerce was the creation of a fully monetized economy throughout the Roman Empire. Although bartering continued to function, coinage had come into heavy usage after and on account of the policies of Alexander the Great. Strabo even goes so far as to mention that the lack of the use of coinage was a characteristic of barbarism (Geogr. 7.5.5).

Merchants include shippers, entrepreneurs, and their agents, who traveled about making contracts and supervising the shipment of goods. Although the typical source of income for an aristocrat was agriculture, the enticement of potential profits of commerce led some to engage in the merchant trade or appoint their slaves to do so. Jesus seems to allude to the latter practice in Matthew’s Gospel when he tells a parable of a master who goes on a long journey and expects his servants to handle his affairs (Matt. 25:14–27). A slave might be entrusted with a message or a business transaction abroad. Thus, it would not have been uncommon to see a slave traveling and handling his master’s business. Perhaps this gives insight into Onesimus, the slave whom Paul encounters, who belongs to Philemon (see Philem. 10–18).

Due to slow travel times, most foods were not transported very far. But the high demand for grain grew the commerce industry from a generally localized phenomenon to an international operation. Aside from the well-documented import/export of grain, items such as wine, dried fruits, spices, and other luxury items were shipped longer distances. Commerce was undertaken by both land and sea.

Traveling by land. Nothing like the massive infrastructure of modern nations existed in antiquity. Yet, by the time of the NT, Roman roads made shipping and land travel more efficient and possible than ever before. The extent of these road systems expanded from modern-day Scotland to the Euphrates and provided strategic value for the empire but also profoundly revolutionized commerce and travel. Many of these roads are still in use. Even with the improved conditions of the road systems, however, land commerce was slow and costly. Most commercial traffic, therefore, was localized. Maritime commercial enterprise, however, allowed for quicker, more economical shipping.

There were two principal land trade routes in the Roman world. First, the Appian Way (Lat. Via Appia) ran south from Rome to Capua, crossing Italy and extending to Brundisium on the Adriatic coast. Stretches of this road were traversed by Paul and his companions as they went to Rome (Acts 28:15–16). The second, the Egnatian Way (Lat. Via Egnatia), begins in Dyrrachium and spans across Macedonia and eventually to Byzantium (Istanbul). A stretch of Paul’s second and third missionary journeys would have used this path as he traveled to Thessalonica (cf. Acts 17:1).

To the east, in Asia Minor (present-day Turkey), the well-traveled east-west roadway was known as the Common Way. Anyone familiar with Paul’s missionary journeys will recognize some of the stops along the Common Way: Ephesus, Laodicea, Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, and Tarsus (to name a few).

Traveling by sea. The presence of maritime commerce is well documented in the NT. Virtually no travel industry existed in its own right; rather, travel followed the established trade routes. If one wished to travel by sea, one sought a cargo vessel heading to the appropriate locale. Thus, when the NT records sea travel, it is in the context of commerce ships (cf. Acts 27:38). Most ships stayed close to land and ventured between ports (cf. 20:13–15; 21:1–8; 27:2), although if the prevailing western winds could be utilized, a large ship would take to the open sea.

Although commerce was not an industry of the elite (cf. Cicero, Off. 1.150–151; Homer, Od. 8.14ff.), the importance of maritime trade cannot be overlooked. This industry provided a way to redistribute essential resources and goods throughout the Roman world, potentially eliminating temporary shortages. Both Athens and Rome depended highly upon imports of grain from Egypt to feed their urban population and maintain armies. In fact, much of the large commercial travel on the Mediterranean was undertaken to supply grain to Rome. The book of Acts mentions two such grain ships from Alexandria (27:6, 38; 28:11).

Large-scale sea commerce could transport vast amounts of goods between locations. Acts mentions 276 persons traveling on a grain ship destined for Rome (27:37). Likewise, Josephus records his ill-fated journey to Rome on a ship carrying 600 passengers (Life 15). This number of passengers provides some insight into the size of these sea vessels and the amount of cargo that could be carried. It is thought that an Alexandrian commerce ship could be up to two hundred feet long.

There were two principal maritime trade routes in the Roman world. First, the sea route from Puteoli (southeast of Rome) to Alexandria was used by merchant ships that took advantage of the prevailing winds on the Mediterranean as they traveled to Egypt for grain. This passage, of nearly one thousand nautical miles, could be made in less than two weeks. Conversely, the journey back could take up to three months and followed the Palestinian coast north, passing several significant ports: Lydda, Joppa, Caesarea, Ptolemais, Tyre, Sidon, and Antioch.

Although Roman peace ushered in an era of safer travel by land and by sea, maritime transit remained quite dangerous. Paul is recorded to have undergone four shipwrecks (see Acts 27:39–44; 2 Cor. 11:25–26). Josephus records his own journey to Rome “through a great number of hazards, by sea” (Life 14). Weather patterns and sea conditions could change quickly, and it was generally acknowledged that certain times of the year were better for traveling (Cod. theod. 13.9.3.3; Tacitus, Hist. 4.81; Acts 27:9–12; cf. 2 Tim. 4:13). Nevertheless, the Roman imperium offered generous incentives to merchants who risked the season and brought supplies of grain to Rome from Egypt (Suetonius, Claud. 18–19; Cassius Dio, Hist. 60.11). Such a ship provided the context for the apostle Paul’s journey to Rome, which ended in shipwreck and the loss of the grain product, but remarkably without any loss of life (see Acts 27:13–44).

Trade associations. Trade associations of various kinds existed in the ancient world. Such a group consisted of merchants or artisans who shared a common trade. These groups typically exerted no political, social, or economic influence. Rather, they existed to protect the merchants and artisans and their economic interests. Such was the case when the artisans of Ephesus incited a riot over the actions of Paul and his companions when they preached against the idolatry of Artemis worship (Acts 19:26). The statement that “all Asia and the world” worship Artemis (19:27) certainly is hyperbolic; yet the pervasiveness of the Artemis cult is recorded in other sources (Pausanias, Descr. 4.31.8; Strabo, Geogr. 4.1.5) and suggests that the artisans who fashioned these silver shrines made good money in the local economy.

Likewise, the bronze trade from Corinth is well documented in antiquity (e.g., Vitruvius, De arch. 8.41; Pliny the Elder, Nat. 34.6). Bronze was used to produce various goods: bowls, jewelry, and sound-enhancing vessels for the theater at Corinth. The latter may be what Paul alludes to when he writes of a “resounding gong” (1 Cor. 13:1). The recognition of the beauty and value of Corinthian bronze resulted in it being sought after by other markets. Pliny the Elder reports, “There has been a wonderful mania among many people for possessing this metal” (Nat. 34.6). Located on the Greek Peloponnesus, Corinth was in a strategic position to distribute its goods throughout the Roman Empire. It was to this port city that Paul came and spent significant time planting a church (Acts 18:1, 18).

The English word “tradition” refers both to a process of transmitting information from generation to generation and to the content that is thus transmitted. Tradition can be oral or written, and in the context of theology and biblical studies it constitutes a form of religious authority and a means of legitimating customs and beliefs. Much of the biblical data concerning tradition, which comes primarily from the NT, is connected with the verbal notion of “passing (something) on” or, conversely, “receiving (something).” There is also a noun meaning “tradition.” The writings of the NT are neither for nor against traditional authority per se as a form of religious authority, but instead display a range of attitudes toward tradition and traditions.

Jesus’ Critique of Jewish Tradition

On one occasion, Jesus sharply rebuked the Pharisees and teachers of the law for “setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions” (Mark 7:9 [cf. Matt. 15:1–20]). The context of this remark is a dispute between Jesus and his interlocutors that arose when Jesus’ disciples were observed eating with unwashed hands. According to the Pharisees (as reported by Matthew and Mark), this requirement was a “tradition of the elders” (Mark 7:5). Jesus, however, distinguished between human traditions and the word of God, and he accused the Pharisees of adhering to the former even when this conflicted with observance of the latter. Later written rabbinic sources posited two streams of normative tradition, both going back to Moses and Mount Sinai: the written law and the oral law. This distinction, or one like it, may lie behind Jesus’ dispute with the Pharisees and the teachers of the law. It is important to note that Jesus’ criticism of tradition is not simply formal (i.e., opposition to traditional authority as such) but is substantive, in that the Pharisees were guilty of following traditions that prevented them from observing the commands of Moses: “You nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that” (Mark 7:13). The memory of Jesus’ antitraditional posture was later invoked by the opponents of Stephen, who said, “We have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs Moses handed down to us” (Acts 6:14).

Such a negative view of tradition is also evident in Col. 2:8, where the apostle warns against captivity to “hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ.” The subsequent discussion elucidates to some extent the content of the traditions that threatened to displace the primary orientation of the believer to life in Christ (2:6–7); these include circumcision “performed by human hands” (2:11), rules about eating, drinking, Sabbaths, and holidays (2:16), and rules of asceticism designed to restrain “sensual indulgence” (2:23). Interestingly, while Jesus set up an antithesis between the traditions of the elders and the law of Moses, Col. 2:14 appears to identify “the charge of our legal indebtedness” with the system that depends on human tradition rather than on Christ.

The situation represented by Col. 2:8–23 (dependence on tradition versus dependence on Christ) finds a similar expression in Paul’s autobiographical account in Gal. 1:11–24. There, Paul assures his audience that the gospel he preached “is not of human origin” (v. 11). Invoking the vocabulary of tradition, he continues, “I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ” (vv. 12–13). Paul goes on to flesh out this antithesis between revelation and tradition, particularly as it applies to his apostolic claims: he is not against religious tradition as such, since he was formerly “zealous for the traditions of my fathers” (v. 14). Nonetheless, the radically nontraditional authority of his gospel is underscored by the fact that he did “not consult any human being” (vv. 16–17, 19). Of course, it is not likely that Paul would desire to undermine tradition per se, as he would himself rely on it as a means of propagating his own gospel. Indeed, he had already warned the Galatians against departing from the tradition that they had accepted from him (1:9) (see the discussion of 1 Cor. 15:1–11 below).

Positive Attitudes toward Tradition

In contrast to Jesus’ critique of the traditions of the elders observed by the Pharisees, a number of NT texts present the transmission of traditions in a positive light. Chief among these is Paul’s discussion in 1 Cor. 15:1–11 of the gospel he preached in Corinth. In this text, he speaks of his own reception of the tradition (“For what I received” [v. 3]), his transmission of the tradition to the Corinthians (“I passed on to you as of first importance” [v. 3]), and the church’s reception of the tradition (“I want to remind you of the gospel . . . which you received” [v. 1]). What follows, the content of the tradition, is a summary of the events of the death and resurrection of Christ according to the Scriptures and his postresurrection manifestation to the apostles, including Paul himself (vv. 3–7). Previously in 1 Corinthians, Paul had commended his audience for their fidelity to tradition: “I praise you for . . . holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you” (11:2). To return to the discussion of Gal. 1 and Paul’s radical break with tradition: for Paul, the revelation of Christ stood outside the prior stream of tradition in which he had been raised, but subsequently it became a new tradition to be passed on and to be held with as much zeal as the old (see Acts 16:4; Rom. 6:17; 1 Cor. 11:23; Phil. 4:9; 1 Thess. 2:13; 4:1–2; 2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6).

Like Paul, other NT writers appeal to traditional authority as a means of passing on the faith. Jude urges his readers to “contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people” (Jude 3 [cf. 2 Pet. 2:21]). Luke’s credentials as a historian include his faithful transmission of the account of things “just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word” (Luke 1:2). Like Paul, Luke asserts the authority of the traditional process while also recognizing that the transmitted tradition had a historical inception in recent memory (in this case, the testimony of eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus). In other words, the appeal is not simply to traditional teaching per se, as if “old” is intrinsically better than “new”; rather, the story of Jesus, as new as it is in history, becomes a matter of tradition once it has occurred and been testified to by eyewitnesses.

Tradition and Protestantism

In broad terms, each of the three great “religions of the book” (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) recognizes theologically normative streams of postscriptural (or extrascriptural) tradition in addition to their sacred books. During the Reformation, Protestant theologians sought to introduce a number of corrections to medieval theology under the banner of a return to “Scripture alone” (sola Scriptura). In response, Catholic theologians asserted the authority of Scripture, tradition, and the magisterium (the teaching of the church). All living traditions, of course, pragmatically rely on multiple forms of religious authority. As a result of this history, “tradition” has come to stand for an illegitimate or at least suspect form of religious authority in some strands of Protestant thought, wherein a radical biblicism is professed in contrast to a celebration of tradition and traditions.

(1) The trailing skirt of a robe or outer garment (Isa. 6:1). It usually denoted favor, wealth, and/or power (Exod. 28:33; Ps. 68:18). (2) To prepare through instruction and practice for war (Isa. 2:4) and/or life (Prov. 22:6; 1 Tim. 4:7).

Trances are mentioned three times in the Bible, all in the book of Acts (10:10; 11:5; 22:17; the KJV rendering of “trance” in Num. 24:4, 16 is an interpolation). Like the English word “trance,” the underlying Greek word, ekstasis, speaks of an altered state of consciousness; in the two biblical examples of ekstasis, God communicated to humans in this state. Different Greek words are used both for “dream” (enypnion, onar) and “vision” (horama, horasis).

In a trance, Peter saw a sheet descending from heaven, filled with unclean animals (Acts 10:10–17; recounted in 11:5–17). The Lord explained to him in the trance that it was permissible for him, as a Jew, to associate with the Gentile Cornelius (10:28–29). Paul also experienced a trance; in his case, he was in the temple when the Lord warned him to leave Jerusalem (22:17–21). In both of these cases, the recipients of God’s message were able to respond to God and were not merely passive (10:14; 22:19–20).

The event in which Jesus’ inward, hidden glory became visible for his inner circle of disciples (Peter, James, John) to see. The episode is recorded in Matt. 16:28–17:8; Mark 9:1–8; Luke 9:27–36 and is alluded to in 2 Pet. 1:16–21. The Gospel episode may be summarized as follows: Immediately after Peter confessed that Jesus was the Christ, Jesus predicted that some of his disciples would not see death until they tasted of the kingdom of God. Some six days later (Luke rounds it off to eight days [Luke 9:28]), Jesus took Peter, James, and John to a mountaintop (traditionally identified as Mount Tabor, though Mount Hermon may be more likely since it was close to Caesarea Philippi, the place of Peter’s confession). There, suddenly, the inward, hidden glory of Jesus shone through his body, and he was seen conversing with Moses and Elijah. Peter wanted his companions to build booths, temporary shelters, to prolong the visit of the three heavenly personages: Moses, the representative of the law; Elijah, the representative of the prophets; and Jesus, the Messiah. But God the Father mildly rebuked Peter, announcing that Jesus is his beloved Son; he is the preeminent one, the one who should be heard.

Second Peter 1:16–21 simply says that Peter was an eyewitness of the transfiguration, and that the divine voice that he heard proclaiming Jesus to be the Son of God is the same voice speaking through him in his letter confirming that the second coming of Christ will truly happen.

Four prophetic themes emerge from the transfiguration episode.

1. Some of the disciples did indeed taste of the kingdom of God during their lifetime, for the transfiguration provided for them a foretaste of the glorious splendor that will accompany Christ at his second coming.

2. Moses and Elijah conversing with Jesus on the mountain perhaps indicates that the law (Moses) and the prophets (Elijah) find their fulfillment in Jesus the Messiah.

3. In Luke’s Gospel the transfiguration itself conveys a prophetic word: Jesus was to suffer and die and then enter heavenly glory. Luke 9:31 says that Moses and Elijah were conversing with Jesus about his “exodus” (NIV mg.) in Jerusalem—that is, his death and resurrection, the basis of a new exodus for the people of God. This is confirmed by Jesus’ instruction to his disciples as they descended the mountain of the transfiguration that they should tell no one what they had seen until he rose from the dead (Matt. 17:9; Mark 9:9; cf. Luke 9:44). This theme of suffering fits a threefold pattern that occurs especially in Mark’s Gospel: (1) Jesus predicts his upcoming death in Jerusalem (8:31; 9:9, 31–32; 10:33–34); (2) his disciples in one way or another reject the truth that Jesus came to be a suffering Messiah (8:32–33; 9:10–11, 33–34; 10:35–41); (3) Jesus corrects his disciples’ misunderstanding/rejection of the suffering nature of his messiahship (8:34–38; 9:12–13, 35–37; 10:42–45). The message in all of this is clear: first the sufferings of the cross and then the glory of the kingdom. This would be true for both Jesus and his disciples.

4. The presence of Elijah at the transfiguration also confirmed the disciples’ recent conclusion that Jesus was the Messiah. According to Mal. 4:5, Elijah was to be the forerunner of the Messiah. Jesus agreed, pointing out to the three disciples that Elijah had indeed come in the person of John the Baptist and that he himself, like John, would first suffer before entering into the glory of the messianic kingdom.

The violation of a law or code. The Hebrew word translated “transgression” in the NIV can also mean “revolt” or “rebellion.” Various Greek words are translated “transgression(s)” in the NIV, all of which denote a deliberate violation of the law (Rom. 4:7, 15; 11:11–12; Gal. 3:19; Eph. 2:1, 5). See also Sin.

The stretch of land east of the Jordan River extending from Mount Hermon in the north to the Gulf of Aqaba in the south, including the biblical areas of Bashan, Gilead, Ammon, Moab, and Edom. The area is roughly that of the modern country of Jordan. The word “Transjordan” is not found in the Bible but is derived from variations of the Hebrew ’eber hayyarden (e.g., Deut. 1:1) and the Greek peran tou Iordanou (e.g., Matt. 4:25). The NIV variously translates these phrases as “east of the Jordan,” “across the Jordan,” “beyond the Jordan,” “near the Jordan,” “along the Jordan,” and “on the other side of the Jordan.” Occasionally these phrases also refer to the area west of the Jordan.

Description

Transjordan is a high plateau that in general rises in height from north to south, although Mount Hermon, as part of the Anti-Lebanon range, does mark the highest point of elevation at 9,230 feet above sea level. The plateau, bounded by the Sea of Galilee, the Jordan Rift Valley, the Dead Sea, and the Arabah in the west and the desert to the east, is intersected by numerous streams running east to west that have cut deep gorges as they run toward the Jordan. A main trade route, known as the King’s Highway, ran through Transjordan in biblical times, connecting the Gulf of Aqaba and western Arabia with Damascus in the north (Num. 20:17; 21:22).

The area of Bashan, with mountains to the north, is largely a fertile plain known in the OT for its well-fed cattle and large oak trees (Ps. 22:12; Isa. 2:13; Ezek. 27:6). South of Bashan, between the Yarmuk and the Jabbok (modern Nahr ez-Zerqa) rivers, the hills of Gilead rise to more than three thousand feet and were known for their rich pastureland (Num. 32:1). Although Gilead’s boundaries are defined here as between the Yarmuk and the Jabbok, it should be noted that in the OT “Gilead” occasionally referred to a region extending beyond these two rivers. This larger area is also roughly equivalent to the district called “Perea” by the first-century AD Jewish historian Josephus. South of Gilead, between the Jabbok and the Arnon (modern Seil el-Mojib) rivers lay the country of Ammon, although the political borders of this region were also somewhat fluid. Between the Arnon River and the Zered River (probably modern Wadi el-Hesa) lay the country of Moab, with a well-watered plateau rising to about 3,200 feet. This area was highly suitable for raising sheep (2 Kings 3:4). From the Zered River southward to the Gulf of Aqaba, the mountains of Edom rise to about 5,500 feet above sea level.

History

Biblical mention of Transjordan begins in Gen. 13, when Lot saw the fertile valley of the Jordan and chose to settle in Sodom. Although Sodom’s exact location is unknown, it may have been near the Dead Sea. Similarly, the battle of five kings against Kedorlaomer and his allies, which took place in the Valley of Siddim, may have been located near the south end of the Dead Sea (Gen. 14). Later, Jacob’s flight from Laban took him to the hill country of Gilead and eventually to the bank of the Jabbok River, where he wrestled with the angel (Gen. 31:22–25; 32:22–32).

Transjordan took center stage in the events following Israel’s exodus from Egypt. When the Israelites left Kadesh Barnea in Sinai, Moses requested passage through Edom on the King’s Highway, but the Edomite king refused (Num. 20:14–21). So the Israelites took a more easterly route, along the edge of the desert bordering Transjordan, thus bypassing both Edom and Moab (Num. 21). When they reached the Arnon River and attempted to rejoin the King’s Highway, Sihon king of the Amorites refused them passage and engaged them in battle, only to lose his territory to the Israelites (Num. 21:21–32). The Israelites continued farther north to Bashan, where they fought successfully against Og king of Bashan and claimed his land as well (Num. 21:33–35). When Balak king of Moab heard news of Israel’s victories, he feared for his own country and hired Balaam to curse Israel. However, by God’s prompting, Balaam blessed Israel and cursed Moab instead (Num. 22–23).

Before Israel crossed the Jordan to enter Canaan, the tribes of Reuben and Gad, which owned large numbers of livestock and were impressed by the rich pastureland of Gilead, requested that the land east of the Jordan be given to them (Num. 32:1–5). Thus, Reuben took possession of Ammon north of the Arnon River (Josh. 13:15–23), Gad’s tribe settled the northern parts of Ammon into Gilead (13:24–28), and the half-tribe of Manasseh settled in the hills of Gilead northward through Bashan (13:29–31).

Despite the Israelites’ victories over Sihon and Og and their settlement of Transjordan, hostilities continued between Israel and the remaining inhabitants of the land. Jephthah, for example, a Gileadite, fought successfully against the Ammonites, who wanted their land returned to them (Judg. 11:1–34). Saul also successfully fought the Ammonites when they threatened the town of Jabesh Gilead (1 Sam. 11:1–14). Saul’s courage won the gratitude of the town’s inhabitants, and it was they who later recovered Saul’s body from Beth Shan after the Philistines killed him (1 Sam. 31:7–13). During David’s reign, Israel’s territory was expanded throughout Transjordan from Damascus in the north and through Edom in the south (2 Sam. 8:1–14).

Solomon’s reign and the period of the divided kingdom saw ongoing struggles for control over the regions of Transjordan. Damascus, for example, gained independence during Solomon’s reign (1 Kings 11:23–25), and later Hazael of Syria (r. 842–806 BC) extended the Aramean Empire through Bashan and into Gilead (2 Kings 10:32–33). Later Jehoash and Jeroboam II of Israel were able to recapture this territory (2 Kings 13:25; 14:28). And when Ahab of Israel died, Mesha of Moab, who had been paying tribute to Israel, rebelled. This rebellion prompted Jehoram of Israel to invade and attempt to reassert control over Moab, but he was unsuccessful (2 Kings 3).

In 733/732 BC the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III annexed the northern parts of Trans-jor-dan, while Ammon, Moab, and Edom remained semiautonomous, likely paying tribute. The Babylonian and Persian empires also extended throughout Transjordan.

During the Hellenistic and Roman periods (332 BC–AD 324), Transjordan was controlled by the Ptolemies (c. 333–198 BC), the Seleucids (c. 198–153 BC), the Hasmoneans (c. 153–63 BC), and then the Romans. This era saw the emergence of the Decapolis, a confederation of ten cities settled by Greeks, nine of which were located east of the Jordan. The Romans continued dominance through the Byzantine period (AD 324–638).

The region of Transjordan is mentioned a few times in the NT in connection with Jesus’ ministry. The Gospels note that Jesus’ travels took him across the Jordan (Matt. 19:1–2; Mark 10:1), and that among the crowds who followed him were many from the Decapolis and beyond the Jordan (Matt. 4:25; Mark 3:8). Although the location of his healing of the demoniac is uncertain, in the country of either the Gadarenes (Matt. 8:28) or the Gerasenes (Mark 5:1; Luke 8:26), it was in the Decapolis region that the healed man proclaimed what Jesus had done for him (Mark 5:20).

To communicate the meaning of a text (oral or written) from one language in another. At the time of Ezra, Levites read from the Hebrew “Book of the Law of God,” conveying the “sense” in Aramaic (Neh. 8:1–8). By the first century, Aramaic portions of the Law and the Prophets (Targumim) were read in Palestinian synagogues, and a larger collection, traditionally called the “Seventy” (Septuagint), was translated into Greek in Alexandria, Egypt. These translations range from literal to periphrastic, but with the aim of fidelity to the original. The Gospels occasionally translate Jesus’ Aramaic sayings (e.g., Mark 5:41; John 1:42).

Until the twentieth century, traveling farther than a week’s distance from home was dangerous and expensive. We should not overstate the difficulty or risks of travel then, but certainly it was unlike today. Since virtually every region had its own currency, travelers carried cash and were at risk from thieves, money changers, innkeepers, slavers, and others who preyed upon travelers, as well as from the natural dangers of storms, floods, early snows, and so forth. Outside of cities, there was little law enforcement for the typical traveler (Ezra 8:22). Family was often one’s only defender against injustice (Gen. 14:12–16; Ps. 127:3–5).

For travelers in the biblical world, improvement was slow and gradual. During the time of the patriarchs, travelers faced poor roads, bandits, and no security other than what they could provide themselves (Gen. 14:14). Later Assyrian documents complain of difficult roads. Sargon II (r. 722–705 BC) boasted, “I advanced over inaccessible paths (in) steep and terrifying places” (ARAB 2:25–26). Sennacherib (r. 705–681 BC) tells of having to travel on foot because the road was too steep for his litter (ARAB 2:122–23). Persian roads improved modestly, but Herodotus probably is exaggerating the improvements (Hist. 8.98), as Xenophon seems to indicate (Anab. 1.2.25). Many sources speak of bandits (Ezra 8:31; Hos. 6:9). Thus, safe travel or good roads became a metaphor for peace. When ancient kings bragged, it often was about roads they had built or how the roads were now safe. The arrival of the kingdom of God was symbolized by repairing the road (Isa. 40:3–5; Luke 3:4–6).

Major improvements came with the Roman Empire. For the first (and last) time, a traveler could go from the Euphrates to Egypt to Britain on well-policed roads and sea lanes under one’s own government. Enforced law and standardized, trustworthy coinage had distinct advantages (Isa. 33:8; Matt. 22:15–22).

Running empires required traveling. Envoys (Jer. 27:3), tax collectors (Dan. 11:20), and overseers (1 Kings 5:13–17), as well as armies, moved about on imperial business. While farmers and local merchants traveled limited distances to sell their wares (usually to the closest large city), fortunes could be made by the more adventuresome merchant willing to take the greater risks of traveling farther distances (Gen. 37:28; 1 Kings 10; Job 6:19; Prov. 31:14; Isa. 23:8; Matt. 13:45). The ancient world also saw individuals doing a great deal of local travel (less than sixty miles), usually connected to business (Prov. 31:14), religious festivals (1 Sam. 1; John 10), and family (Gen. 50:1–14; 2 Kings 8:29; Luke 1:39; John 2:1); often the three were woven together.

Travel in the ancient world was by sea or land. Except for the wealthy, this meant booking passage or walking. Sentimental images of a pregnant Mary riding a donkey to Bethlehem or of the apostle Paul doing missionary travels on horseback are likely fiction. Although there is some evidence of women traveling on donkeys (Josh. 15:18; 1 Sam. 25:20, 23; 2 Sam. 16:1–2), the stories are of prominent women or unusual occasions; it should not be assumed to be normative. Obviously, the infirm rode when required to travel, but they preferred not to travel (2 Sam. 19:26–37). The wealthiest used private transport (Acts 8:27–28). We have references to travel by donkey, mule, camel, horse, cart, litter, and chariot, but ordinary people walked. Typically, a good day’s walk was twenty miles; sea travel was by daylight and averaged roughly the same. Calculating how long it took someone to travel, though, is not merely a matter of math. Both sea and land travelers were fair-weather travelers, usually between June and September. On a long journey, one had to plan where to “winter.” Ancient travelers had to make their travel plans around the seasons.

Travel by Land

Roads. Until the Romans, a “road” was merely a cleared path. They were ungraded and often impassable in wet weather. Nonetheless, they followed a distinct route, marked by “guideposts” (Jer. 31:21). In the ancient world, major roads ran east-west from Syria into Mesopotamia. North-south roads connected Syria to Egypt, through Palestine. The Assyrian army invaded Israel by traveling west on the road as far as Syria and then turning south. The battles fought in Gen. 14 were to control the north-south road (and thus trade). Solomon built wealth by controlling this trade (2 Chron. 9:14). Three major roads ran north-south through Israel. (1) The King’s Highway (Num. 20:17) ran through the eastern region, from Damascus through the eastern highlands of the Transjordan and down to the Gulf of Aqaba, where Solomon maintained a port (2 Chron. 8:17). (2) The central (or Sinai) road ran from Sidon south to Tyre, Akko, Shechem, Jerusalem, Hebron, Beersheba, Kadesh Barnea, into the Negev, and on to Egypt. (3) The Sea Road (Via Maris) ran from Damascus to Hazor through the Valley of Jezreel (the Plain of Esdraelon through the Megiddo Pass), down the coast of Israel through Gaza and into Egypt. Taking Megiddo meant controlling this road and the trade. The Egyptians (Thutmose III) defeated the Canaanites and took this road around 1468 BC. David captured it about 1000 BC. Josiah died defending this road against the Egyptians (Necho II) in 609 BC.

The Greeks extended a major road connecting through Asia Minor to the ancient road running into Mesopotamia. The Romans built roads of flat stone placed upon foundations. Parts of these roads are still in use today. From Rome they built to the sea (Via Ostiensis, Via Portuensis), to the south (Via Appia), to the west (Via Aurelia), to the north (Via Flaminia), to the Adriatic (Via Salaria, Via Valeria), and to the east (Via Ignatia) connecting Rome to Greece and thus to the rest of the biblical world.

Lodgings. Land travel necessitated lodgings. The wealthy near Rome often had homes along the common routes that they plied. Slaves ran ahead to announce that the master was coming. Friends and those on the master’s business likely used these homes as well when traveling. When off the normal route, an aristocrat traveled with a retinue of servants, wagons, and tents to enable a well-equipped (and secure) camp each evening. The ordinary traveler had no extra homes or entourages. Groups large enough for safety could camp near town. Individuals relied upon hospitality in town. Those individual travelers unfortunate to lack any kinship with townsfolk often had no recourse but inns. Petronius (Sat. 94–97) tells a seamy story of misadventures in the roadside inns of his day. Archaeology and literature describe ill-kept dumps involving disreputable proprietors, questionable guests, and plenty of loose morals. Ancient Hebrews and early Christians emphasized hospitality (Gen. 19:1–2; Judg. 19:11–20; Rom. 12:13; 1 Pet. 4:9; 3 John 8).

Distance and duration. Using the distances between ancient stopping places, travel records, and comments in literary sources, scholars generally agree that a normal walking traveler could expect to cover twenty miles in a day. Peter’s trip from Joppa to Caesarea (about forty miles) took two days (Acts 10:23–30). Travelers using beasts of burden generally covered the same distance. Chariots averaged a bit better, perhaps twenty-five to thirty miles per day. Whether they actually traveled farther or just stopped earlier for the night is debatable. Horseback was intended for speed and could easily average fifty miles per day. Yet we must avoid the mistake of calculating travel time between places by simple math. While such calculations generally hold true for one- or two-day journeys (Acts 10), longer journeys encountered delays. Towns along main roads were commonly spaced a day’s walk apart. Yet it is unwise to assume that a traveler always left the next morning after an overnight stay. Jesus warned his traveling preachers against such rudeness (Luke 10:5–7). Moreover, the host likely provided the food supplies and extra funds for the traveler’s next walk (3 John 5–8; Did. 11.5–6). Certainly, Jewish travelers were affected by Sabbaths and feasts. Not only would they not travel on those days, but also they likely would delay or rush to reach a particular location (Acts 20:2–5, 16; 1 Cor. 16:8). Ancients traveled according to a different tempo than modern Westerners.

Seasons caused more serious delays. When traveling season ended, travelers were forced to spend the winter wherever they were at that time. If possible, they did not leave this to chance but rather planned where to “winter” (Jer. 36:22; Acts 27:12; 1 Cor. 16:6; Titus 3:12). Terrain was a serious consideration. Mountain passes and river fords were obvious factors, and ancients often took the easier (or safer) though longer path. Hence, there were three roads leading from Perga to Pisidian Antioch, the longest (western) being the safest and easiest. Uphill journeys, snow-blocked passes, and flash floods slowed ancient travelers, sometimes stranding them longer than their planned supplies would last (2 Cor. 6:5).

Traveling in groups. Since travelers carried money, they avoided traveling alone or in very small groups. (The so-called wise men of Matt. 2:1–12 almost certainly would have been waylaid had there been only three of them.) Commonly, travelers gathered in the agora (marketplace) early in the morning looking for fellow travelers heading their way, thus making traveling companions of those with whom they might not normally associate (Luke 9:57; 14:25). It was also common for travelers to join others along the road (Luke 24:13–16; Acts 8:27–30).

Travel by Sea

Ships. Almost all ancient ships were wooden. A “fast ship” was not necessarily a sleeker mode, but a dry one. Ideally, ships were stored out of the water during winter. Waterlogged ships were naturally slower.

No biblical empire was worth its salt unless it had naval supremacy in the Mediterranean Sea. Sailing vessels were at the mercy of the wind, so military ships meant galley ships. Rowing allowed captains to move without the wind. Today, we tend to imagine rowers like the “galley slaves” of the Middle Ages. Ancient rowers, however, were honored soldiers. Ships rammed each other in battle, and skill at the oar often meant the difference between victory and death. Once the enemy was rammed, rowers sprang up from their oars and fought hand to hand.

Piracy and commerce. No one could claim dominance of the sea without controlling piracy. The Roman navy, for the first time in history, managed to virtually eliminate piracy. Roman archers and slingers rained destruction as they drew near pirate vessels. Catapults later were added for heavy artillery. Finally, firepots slung out on long poles set fire to the enemy’s ship, which the Romans then rammed and boarded.

With the taming of the Mediterranean, commercial shipping exploded in growth. Transporting cargo, passengers, and dispatches became profitable business. Smaller ships (like a Galilean fishing boat) depended upon oars, with a small sail as an auxiliary. Larger merchant ships depended more on sails. Sailing ships, with favorable winds, probably averaged between two and four miles per hour, but only half that with unfavorable winds. Ancient ships hugged coastlines and avoided bad weather.

Common cargo ships carried an average of about 250 tons of cargo and/or passengers and ranged from 70 to 150 feet in length. Those carrying 350 to 500 tons were considered large but not rare. It is thought that the grain ships in Paul’s day (as in Acts 27) routinely were three-decked, 180 feet long, carried 1,300 tons, and took over a week to unload.

Traveling by ship. Although cargo ships also carried passengers, some ships were primarily for passengers. Josephus, on an unsuccessful attempt to sail to Rome, was on a ship with six hundred passengers (Josephus, Life 15). Sallust, a Roman historian, mentions a cohort (about 600 men) traveling on one transport ship (Hist. 3.8). Paul’s ship to Rome had 276 aboard (Acts 27:37). Acts gives the impression that this ship left too late in the season. Aside from those compelled by Rome, likely only the brave or the desperate would book such passage. Thus, we should not assume that the ship was fully booked.

Like land travel, however, sea travel also was restricted by season. In the eastern half of the Mediterranean, the wind blows from the northwest toward the southeast persistently from June to September, marking the favorable sailing season. Vegetius (Mil. 4.39) writes, “From the 6th day before the kalends of June [May 27] until the rising of Arcturus, that is until the 18th before the kalends of October [Sept. 14], is believed to be the safe period of navigation. . . . From then up to the 3rd before the ides of November, navigation is uncertain. . . . From the 3rd before the ides of November to the 6th before the ides of March, the seas are closed.” Many ancient writers indicated that sea travel in the winter was trecherous.

A person traveling by sea went first to the docks to inquire about ships headed to the desired destination. Harbor managers, dockhands, sailors, or others pointed inquirers toward appropriate ships. After negotiating with a particular ship’s purser, whose job was to book passengers (and guard against stowaways), a passenger was told what day and time to be aboard. The lowest level of ships held the ballast (usually sand or stone) and the bilgewater. Decking over it held cargo. Some ships berthed the cheapest passengers in this area, what we now refer to as steerage (Lucian observes that such passengers were “not even able to stretch their legs on the bare boards alongside the bilgewater” [Jupp. trag. 48]). Larger freighters had another deck above this that may have housed some passengers. In general, however, travelers in Paul’s day (like all travelers up until modern times) camped above deck (some with tents). Only the very wealthy rented cabins (P.Zen. 10). Shipwrecks and pirates were not the only dangers. A man cautioned his wife, “When you come, bring your gold ornaments, but do not wear them on the boat” (P.Mich. 3.214 [see also 8.468]). Then as now, tossing someone overboard left a clean crime scene (Jon. 1:15; cf. Acts 20:3).

Summary

Most biblical characters, like their peers, rarely traveled far from home. It is commonly estimated that Jesus’ ministry encompassed a distance no greater than one hundred miles from his home. His apostles, though, took advantage of the travel benefits of the Roman Empire. Paul was a far more experienced traveler than most, both by land and sea (Acts 27:9–10, 30–32), although he appears to have pushed the limits of safety on occasion. He mentions “sleepless nights and hunger” (2 Cor. 6:5) as well as being “in danger from rivers” and bandits (2 Cor. 11:26). In addition to what is reported in Acts 27, Paul was shipwrecked at least three other times (2 Cor. 11:25). Whether by land or sea, travel in ancient times was not for the fainthearted.

A hunter of wild fowl or game birds. The Hebrew term yaqosh is ambiguous and can also refer to a person who hunts other animals. In biblical times, birds and larger game were hunted with traps or snares, as in Ps. 91:3: “Surely he will save you from the fowler’s snare.” In this passage and others the biblical protagonist is represented as the bird, and the biblical antagonist as the fowler (Ps. 124:7; Prov. 6:5). Jeremiah 5:26 characterizes the wicked of Judah as fowlers, and Hos. 9:8 likens hostility to God’s prophet to the use of a fowler’s snare.

Until the twentieth century, traveling farther than a week’s distance from home was dangerous and expensive. We should not overstate the difficulty or risks of travel then, but certainly it was unlike today. Since virtually every region had its own currency, travelers carried cash and were at risk from thieves, money changers, innkeepers, slavers, and others who preyed upon travelers, as well as from the natural dangers of storms, floods, early snows, and so forth. Outside of cities, there was little law enforcement for the typical traveler (Ezra 8:22). Family was often one’s only defender against injustice (Gen. 14:12–16; Ps. 127:3–5).

For travelers in the biblical world, improvement was slow and gradual. During the time of the patriarchs, travelers faced poor roads, bandits, and no security other than what they could provide themselves (Gen. 14:14). Later Assyrian documents complain of difficult roads. Sargon II (r. 722–705 BC) boasted, “I advanced over inaccessible paths (in) steep and terrifying places” (ARAB 2:25–26). Sennacherib (r. 705–681 BC) tells of having to travel on foot because the road was too steep for his litter (ARAB 2:122–23). Persian roads improved modestly, but Herodotus probably is exaggerating the improvements (Hist. 8.98), as Xenophon seems to indicate (Anab. 1.2.25). Many sources speak of bandits (Ezra 8:31; Hos. 6:9). Thus, safe travel or good roads became a metaphor for peace. When ancient kings bragged, it often was about roads they had built or how the roads were now safe. The arrival of the kingdom of God was symbolized by repairing the road (Isa. 40:3–5; Luke 3:4–6).

Major improvements came with the Roman Empire. For the first (and last) time, a traveler could go from the Euphrates to Egypt to Britain on well-policed roads and sea lanes under one’s own government. Enforced law and standardized, trustworthy coinage had distinct advantages (Isa. 33:8; Matt. 22:15–22).

Running empires required traveling. Envoys (Jer. 27:3), tax collectors (Dan. 11:20), and overseers (1 Kings 5:13–17), as well as armies, moved about on imperial business. While farmers and local merchants traveled limited distances to sell their wares (usually to the closest large city), fortunes could be made by the more adventuresome merchant willing to take the greater risks of traveling farther distances (Gen. 37:28; 1 Kings 10; Job 6:19; Prov. 31:14; Isa. 23:8; Matt. 13:45). The ancient world also saw individuals doing a great deal of local travel (less than sixty miles), usually connected to business (Prov. 31:14), religious festivals (1 Sam. 1; John 10), and family (Gen. 50:1–14; 2 Kings 8:29; Luke 1:39; John 2:1); often the three were woven together.

Travel in the ancient world was by sea or land. Except for the wealthy, this meant booking passage or walking. Sentimental images of a pregnant Mary riding a donkey to Bethlehem or of the apostle Paul doing missionary travels on horseback are likely fiction. Although there is some evidence of women traveling on donkeys (Josh. 15:18; 1 Sam. 25:20, 23; 2 Sam. 16:1–2), the stories are of prominent women or unusual occasions; it should not be assumed to be normative. Obviously, the infirm rode when required to travel, but they preferred not to travel (2 Sam. 19:26–37). The wealthiest used private transport (Acts 8:27–28). We have references to travel by donkey, mule, camel, horse, cart, litter, and chariot, but ordinary people walked. Typically, a good day’s walk was twenty miles; sea travel was by daylight and averaged roughly the same. Calculating how long it took someone to travel, though, is not merely a matter of math. Both sea and land travelers were fair-weather travelers, usually between June and September. On a long journey, one had to plan where to “winter.” Ancient travelers had to make their travel plans around the seasons.

Travel by Land

Roads. Until the Romans, a “road” was merely a cleared path. They were ungraded and often impassable in wet weather. Nonetheless, they followed a distinct route, marked by “guideposts” (Jer. 31:21). In the ancient world, major roads ran east-west from Syria into Mesopotamia. North-south roads connected Syria to Egypt, through Palestine. The Assyrian army invaded Israel by traveling west on the road as far as Syria and then turning south. The battles fought in Gen. 14 were to control the north-south road (and thus trade). Solomon built wealth by controlling this trade (2 Chron. 9:14). Three major roads ran north-south through Israel. (1) The King’s Highway (Num. 20:17) ran through the eastern region, from Damascus through the eastern highlands of the Transjordan and down to the Gulf of Aqaba, where Solomon maintained a port (2 Chron. 8:17). (2) The central (or Sinai) road ran from Sidon south to Tyre, Akko, Shechem, Jerusalem, Hebron, Beersheba, Kadesh Barnea, into the Negev, and on to Egypt. (3) The Sea Road (Via Maris) ran from Damascus to Hazor through the Valley of Jezreel (the Plain of Esdraelon through the Megiddo Pass), down the coast of Israel through Gaza and into Egypt. Taking Megiddo meant controlling this road and the trade. The Egyptians (Thutmose III) defeated the Canaanites and took this road around 1468 BC. David captured it about 1000 BC. Josiah died defending this road against the Egyptians (Necho II) in 609 BC.

The Greeks extended a major road connecting through Asia Minor to the ancient road running into Mesopotamia. The Romans built roads of flat stone placed upon foundations. Parts of these roads are still in use today. From Rome they built to the sea (Via Ostiensis, Via Portuensis), to the south (Via Appia), to the west (Via Aurelia), to the north (Via Flaminia), to the Adriatic (Via Salaria, Via Valeria), and to the east (Via Ignatia) connecting Rome to Greece and thus to the rest of the biblical world.

Lodgings. Land travel necessitated lodgings. The wealthy near Rome often had homes along the common routes that they plied. Slaves ran ahead to announce that the master was coming. Friends and those on the master’s business likely used these homes as well when traveling. When off the normal route, an aristocrat traveled with a retinue of servants, wagons, and tents to enable a well-equipped (and secure) camp each evening. The ordinary traveler had no extra homes or entourages. Groups large enough for safety could camp near town. Individuals relied upon hospitality in town. Those individual travelers unfortunate to lack any kinship with townsfolk often had no recourse but inns. Petronius (Sat. 94–97) tells a seamy story of misadventures in the roadside inns of his day. Archaeology and literature describe ill-kept dumps involving disreputable proprietors, questionable guests, and plenty of loose morals. Ancient Hebrews and early Christians emphasized hospitality (Gen. 19:1–2; Judg. 19:11–20; Rom. 12:13; 1 Pet. 4:9; 3 John 8).

Distance and duration. Using the distances between ancient stopping places, travel records, and comments in literary sources, scholars generally agree that a normal walking traveler could expect to cover twenty miles in a day. Peter’s trip from Joppa to Caesarea (about forty miles) took two days (Acts 10:23–30). Travelers using beasts of burden generally covered the same distance. Chariots averaged a bit better, perhaps twenty-five to thirty miles per day. Whether they actually traveled farther or just stopped earlier for the night is debatable. Horseback was intended for speed and could easily average fifty miles per day. Yet we must avoid the mistake of calculating travel time between places by simple math. While such calculations generally hold true for one- or two-day journeys (Acts 10), longer journeys encountered delays. Towns along main roads were commonly spaced a day’s walk apart. Yet it is unwise to assume that a traveler always left the next morning after an overnight stay. Jesus warned his traveling preachers against such rudeness (Luke 10:5–7). Moreover, the host likely provided the food supplies and extra funds for the traveler’s next walk (3 John 5–8; Did. 11.5–6). Certainly, Jewish travelers were affected by Sabbaths and feasts. Not only would they not travel on those days, but also they likely would delay or rush to reach a particular location (Acts 20:2–5, 16; 1 Cor. 16:8). Ancients traveled according to a different tempo than modern Westerners.

Seasons caused more serious delays. When traveling season ended, travelers were forced to spend the winter wherever they were at that time. If possible, they did not leave this to chance but rather planned where to “winter” (Jer. 36:22; Acts 27:12; 1 Cor. 16:6; Titus 3:12). Terrain was a serious consideration. Mountain passes and river fords were obvious factors, and ancients often took the easier (or safer) though longer path. Hence, there were three roads leading from Perga to Pisidian Antioch, the longest (western) being the safest and easiest. Uphill journeys, snow-blocked passes, and flash floods slowed ancient travelers, sometimes stranding them longer than their planned supplies would last (2 Cor. 6:5).

Traveling in groups. Since travelers carried money, they avoided traveling alone or in very small groups. (The so-called wise men of Matt. 2:1–12 almost certainly would have been waylaid had there been only three of them.) Commonly, travelers gathered in the agora (marketplace) early in the morning looking for fellow travelers heading their way, thus making traveling companions of those with whom they might not normally associate (Luke 9:57; 14:25). It was also common for travelers to join others along the road (Luke 24:13–16; Acts 8:27–30).

Travel by Sea

Ships. Almost all ancient ships were wooden. A “fast ship” was not necessarily a sleeker mode, but a dry one. Ideally, ships were stored out of the water during winter. Waterlogged ships were naturally slower.

No biblical empire was worth its salt unless it had naval supremacy in the Mediterranean Sea. Sailing vessels were at the mercy of the wind, so military ships meant galley ships. Rowing allowed captains to move without the wind. Today, we tend to imagine rowers like the “galley slaves” of the Middle Ages. Ancient rowers, however, were honored soldiers. Ships rammed each other in battle, and skill at the oar often meant the difference between victory and death. Once the enemy was rammed, rowers sprang up from their oars and fought hand to hand.

Piracy and commerce. No one could claim dominance of the sea without controlling piracy. The Roman navy, for the first time in history, managed to virtually eliminate piracy. Roman archers and slingers rained destruction as they drew near pirate vessels. Catapults later were added for heavy artillery. Finally, firepots slung out on long poles set fire to the enemy’s ship, which the Romans then rammed and boarded.

With the taming of the Mediterranean, commercial shipping exploded in growth. Transporting cargo, passengers, and dispatches became profitable business. Smaller ships (like a Galilean fishing boat) depended upon oars, with a small sail as an auxiliary. Larger merchant ships depended more on sails. Sailing ships, with favorable winds, probably averaged between two and four miles per hour, but only half that with unfavorable winds. Ancient ships hugged coastlines and avoided bad weather.

Common cargo ships carried an average of about 250 tons of cargo and/or passengers and ranged from 70 to 150 feet in length. Those carrying 350 to 500 tons were considered large but not rare. It is thought that the grain ships in Paul’s day (as in Acts 27) routinely were three-decked, 180 feet long, carried 1,300 tons, and took over a week to unload.

Traveling by ship. Although cargo ships also carried passengers, some ships were primarily for passengers. Josephus, on an unsuccessful attempt to sail to Rome, was on a ship with six hundred passengers (Josephus, Life 15). Sallust, a Roman historian, mentions a cohort (about 600 men) traveling on one transport ship (Hist. 3.8). Paul’s ship to Rome had 276 aboard (Acts 27:37). Acts gives the impression that this ship left too late in the season. Aside from those compelled by Rome, likely only the brave or the desperate would book such passage. Thus, we should not assume that the ship was fully booked.

Like land travel, however, sea travel also was restricted by season. In the eastern half of the Mediterranean, the wind blows from the northwest toward the southeast persistently from June to September, marking the favorable sailing season. Vegetius (Mil. 4.39) writes, “From the 6th day before the kalends of June [May 27] until the rising of Arcturus, that is until the 18th before the kalends of October [Sept. 14], is believed to be the safe period of navigation. . . . From then up to the 3rd before the ides of November, navigation is uncertain. . . . From the 3rd before the ides of November to the 6th before the ides of March, the seas are closed.” Many ancient writers indicated that sea travel in the winter was trecherous.

A person traveling by sea went first to the docks to inquire about ships headed to the desired destination. Harbor managers, dockhands, sailors, or others pointed inquirers toward appropriate ships. After negotiating with a particular ship’s purser, whose job was to book passengers (and guard against stowaways), a passenger was told what day and time to be aboard. The lowest level of ships held the ballast (usually sand or stone) and the bilgewater. Decking over it held cargo. Some ships berthed the cheapest passengers in this area, what we now refer to as steerage (Lucian observes that such passengers were “not even able to stretch their legs on the bare boards alongside the bilgewater” [Jupp. trag. 48]). Larger freighters had another deck above this that may have housed some passengers. In general, however, travelers in Paul’s day (like all travelers up until modern times) camped above deck (some with tents). Only the very wealthy rented cabins (P.Zen. 10). Shipwrecks and pirates were not the only dangers. A man cautioned his wife, “When you come, bring your gold ornaments, but do not wear them on the boat” (P.Mich. 3.214 [see also 8.468]). Then as now, tossing someone overboard left a clean crime scene (Jon. 1:15; cf. Acts 20:3).

Summary

Most biblical characters, like their peers, rarely traveled far from home. It is commonly estimated that Jesus’ ministry encompassed a distance no greater than one hundred miles from his home. His apostles, though, took advantage of the travel benefits of the Roman Empire. Paul was a far more experienced traveler than most, both by land and sea (Acts 27:9–10, 30–32), although he appears to have pushed the limits of safety on occasion. He mentions “sleepless nights and hunger” (2 Cor. 6:5) as well as being “in danger from rivers” and bandits (2 Cor. 11:26). In addition to what is reported in Acts 27, Paul was shipwrecked at least three other times (2 Cor. 11:25). Whether by land or sea, travel in ancient times was not for the fainthearted.

Treasure was stored in the Jerusalem temple and palace (Josh. 6:24) and was collected from the spoils of war (Josh. 6:19), from offerings (2 Kings 12:4; Mark 12:41), and from royal gifts (2 Kings 12:18; 1 Chron. 29:3). The temple treasury contained gold, silver, other metals, and precious stones (1 Chron. 29:8). Treasuries also housed written records (Ezra 6:1). Treasure was stored in the small rooms that surrounded the sanctuary (1 Chron. 28:12; see also Jer. 38:11) and was guarded by Levites (1 Chron. 9:26). Several treasurers are named (1 Chron. 9:26; 26:20, 22; 2 Chron. 25:24). The Ethiopian eunuch who met Philip was a treasurer in the court of the Kandake (Acts 8:27). The treasury funded repairs to the temple (2 Kings 12:7; Ezra 7:20).

Invading kings frequently raided the temple treasury, including Shishak of Egypt (1 Kings 14:26), Jehoash of Israel (2 Kings 14:14), and finally Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon (2 Kings 24:13; Dan. 1:2), as foretold by Jeremiah (Jer. 15:13). On other occasions, the kings of Judah drew money from the treasury to make tribute payments to foreign rulers (1 Kings 15:18; 2 Kings 12:18; 16:8; 18:15). “Treasury” can also refer to a private account (Prov. 8:21).

Jesus taught that his followers should store up their treasures in heaven and not on earth (Matt. 6:19–21). Earthly treasures will be destroyed over time or perhaps even stolen. In this vein, he urged the rich young ruler to sell his possessions so he might have “treasure in heaven” (Matt. 19:21).

Treasure was stored in the Jerusalem temple and palace (Josh. 6:24) and was collected from the spoils of war (Josh. 6:19), from offerings (2 Kings 12:4; Mark 12:41), and from royal gifts (2 Kings 12:18; 1 Chron. 29:3). The temple treasury contained gold, silver, other metals, and precious stones (1 Chron. 29:8). Treasuries also housed written records (Ezra 6:1). Treasure was stored in the small rooms that surrounded the sanctuary (1 Chron. 28:12; see also Jer. 38:11) and was guarded by Levites (1 Chron. 9:26). Several treasurers are named (1 Chron. 9:26; 26:20, 22; 2 Chron. 25:24). The Ethiopian eunuch who met Philip was a treasurer in the court of the Kandake (Acts 8:27). The treasury funded repairs to the temple (2 Kings 12:7; Ezra 7:20).

Invading kings frequently raided the temple treasury, including Shishak of Egypt (1 Kings 14:26), Jehoash of Israel (2 Kings 14:14), and finally Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon (2 Kings 24:13; Dan. 1:2), as foretold by Jeremiah (Jer. 15:13). On other occasions, the kings of Judah drew money from the treasury to make tribute payments to foreign rulers (1 Kings 15:18; 2 Kings 12:18; 16:8; 18:15). “Treasury” can also refer to a private account (Prov. 8:21).

Jesus taught that his followers should store up their treasures in heaven and not on earth (Matt. 6:19–21). Earthly treasures will be destroyed over time or perhaps even stolen. In this vein, he urged the rich young ruler to sell his possessions so he might have “treasure in heaven” (Matt. 19:21).

Covenant is one of the most significant concepts in the biblical material that affects our understanding of God, his relationship with his people (past, present, and future), and the structure and message of his word. Since the covenant concept is not a unique biblical idea, comparative literature from the world of the Scriptures has enriched our understanding of the nature and the function of covenant. This article highlights the covenant concept and the genre of covenant and provides a brief overview of the major biblical covenants.

Terminology

Defining “covenant.” What is a covenant (Heb. berit)? Most dictionaries refer to it as a pact/compact or an agreement. Although there is some uncertainty regarding the etymology of berit, the two most commonly suggested etymological derivations are from the Akkadian burru, which refers to the establishment of a legal situation by a testimony with an oath, or the Akkadian bittu, often translated as “to bind, fetter.” The NT counterpart word is diathēkē, defined as a “legal disposition of personal goods.” Interestingly, this NT term is used in reference to the initiative of one person who establishes the terms and provisions of the relationship, which is in keeping with unilateral OT covenants. Some OT dictionaries list the “covenant” root with the root for the word “to eat,” perhaps associating the covenant with a covenant meal.

If the concept of binding best represents the covenant terminology, then the covenant is something that binds parties together or obligates one party to the other. Although there are legal implications associated with covenant, the relational aspect of covenant should not be overlooked. A covenant is best understood as a relationship with related legalities. Marriage, for example, is a covenant that establishes and defines a relationship. This perhaps explains why God chose from the realm of relationships among humans the covenant metaphor to establish and communicate his intent in divine-human relationships. The concept of a covenant relationship between God and people is uniquely developed in the biblical material.

Some covenants are between persons of equal status (parity treaties); others are between a master and a servant (suzerainty treaties), between nations, between clans, and between a husband and a wife (Mal. 2:14). To “cut a covenant” at any level of society implies a solemn commitment to a relationship. Hittite treaties illustrate reports of covenant commitments that include a record of negotiations, formulations of terms, a statement that the act of covenant making actually happened, and a closure of negotiations with solemn ratification of the terms.

The most significant covenant relationship in the biblical material is the one between God and humankind. The uniqueness of Israel’s covenant relationship with Yahweh in contrast to all surrounding nations is established on the basis of Deut. 32:8–9. Although Yahweh gave the nations their inheritance, he selected Israel for his own personal care; he established a relationship with the nation independent of and prior to the nation’s association with his land. This was a unique application of the covenant that ran counter to the prevailing Semitic mind-set, which connected deities to specific geographic territories first and was concerned with the inhabitants of those areas only in a secondary sense. Individual OT believers celebrated their relationship with Yahweh and proclaimed him as the unrivaled universal God (Exod. 15; 1 Sam. 2; Isa. 40).

Other key terms. In addition to the “covenant” terminology word group, several other key terms fill out our understanding of this important concept.

“Oath” is a term used synonymously with “covenant” and functions at times to describe the making of a covenant. The oath emphasizes the liability and obligation associated in the relationship (Deut. 29:19). The oath can be taken by both parties (Gen. 26:28) or by just one party (Ezek. 17:13).

The word “testimony” refers to the contents of the two tablets of stone (Exod. 31:18) received by Moses from God at Mount Sinai. The Ark of the Covenant is also identified by the phrase “ark of the testimony” (Exod. 26:34; 30:6; 31:7 KJV, ESV). Testimony in the context of the covenant refers to the obligations placed upon the nation in covenant with Yahweh.

The term “word” can be understood in connection with covenant communication. The conquest of the land (a covenant promise) is viewed as a performance of the word of God (Deut. 9:5 KJV). The phrases “establish his covenant” (Deut. 8:18 KJV) and “perform his word” (Deut. 9:5 KJV) are parallel ideas within the overall concept of covenant. The sure “word of the Lord” to David in 2 Sam. 7:4 can be contrasted with worthless words of the nation used in making a covenant with God (Hos. 10:4).

Torah is a Hebrew term related to covenant. The terms berit and torah are found in parallel structure in Ps. 78:10. The binding arrangement between God and his people is ultimately based upon and regulated by the instructions of his word. The phrase “Book of the Law” (2 Kings 22:8) has the same covenant implications as the phrase “tablets of the Testimony” (Exod. 31:18 ESV, NASB). God indicted the priesthood for misguiding the people and causing them to stumble at the law (Mal. 2:5–8) and ultimately to be misguided in their relationship with him.

Khesed is another Hebrew term that is frequently used with relation to a covenant. Defined as “steadfast covenant loyalty,” it is also understood as grace, mercy, kindness, loving-kindness. Khesed is that characteristic of God which causes him to act consistently and faithfully regarding self-imposed obligations in covenant relationships despite the failure or success of the other party. The khesed of God will never cease (Lam. 3:19–21) because he keeps covenant and mercy (Deut. 7:9, 12). The loyalty of God to David is stated in 2 Sam. 7:14–15 and celebrated in Ps. 89:14, 24, 28, 33–34, 49. In contrast, the people are indicted for their lack of loyalty (Hos. 4:1).

Common phrases. The most common covenant-making phrase is “to cut a covenant.” Two possible practices lie behind this phrase. The first reflects a practice in Mesopotamia and Syria, cutting a covenant into a tablet with a stylus. This may be somewhat similar to what is found in Exod. 31:18, where it is said that the two tablets of stone were “inscribed by the finger of God.” The second practice behind this phrase is the cutting of sacrificial animals. The halving of animals was part of the covenant made with Abraham in Gen. 15:9–18. In a situation of covenant violation God tells Israel that he will treat them like the calf they cut in covenant making (Jer. 34:17–19). Covenant making is also described as establishing a covenant (2 Sam. 23:5), giving a covenant (Gen. 9:12), and erecting a covenant (Exod. 6:4).

Faithfulness and loyalty to a covenant are expressed by several phrases. “Keep a covenant” exhorts the covenant parties to watch, guard, exercise faithfulness to the terms of the relationship established (Exod. 34:7). “Observe a covenant” implies the demonstration of covenant fidelity in observing and doing (Gen. 17:9–10; Exod. 19:5; NIV: “keep my covenant”). God is obviously faithful in observing the covenant (Deut. 7:9–12). “Remember a covenant” conveys more than just a mental exercise, especially when God is the subject of the verbal action of remembering. When God remembers a covenant, he acts with resolve and intervention (Gen. 8:1; 19:29; 30:22; Exod. 2:24).

Covenant infidelity is expressed by the phrases “break the covenant” (Lev. 26:14–16; Jer. 11:10; 31:32; 33:20–21), “not faithful” (Ps. 78:37), “violate the covenant” (Deut. 17:2; Josh. 7:11, 15; 23:16), and “forsake the covenant” (Jer. 22:9; cf. Deut. 29:25; 1 Kings 19:10, 14).

The Covenant Genre

We now turn to the form, content, and function of a covenant, or the covenant genre. There is evidence of a common treaty form used by ancient Near Eastern peoples to govern relationships between nations and tribes. This evidence dates back to the third millennium BC and is derived from literary texts discovered in the ancient Near East. The most helpful contributions to this discussion come from the Hittites (1400–1200 BC), the Assyrians (800–600 BC), and the Babylonians. From this evidence, we are able to identify four ancient Near Eastern arrangements.

1. The intertribal treaty was a legal arrangement between tribes and clans for various purposes such as the purchase of land, trading, or peaceful coexistence. The arrangements made in this format were equally binding on both parties. A possible biblical example is the arrangement between Abraham and Abimelek in Gen. 21:22–34 or the arrangement between Abimelek and Isaac in Gen. 26:28.

2. The parity treaty was an arrangement made between kings and princes who were equal in each other’s eyes. This arrangement involved mutual participation, as illustrated in the economic relationship established between King Solomon and King Hiram of Tyre in 1 Kings 5:1–12.

3. The suzerainty treaty was established between two parties, one inferior and one superior. The distinctive emphasis of the treaty was on the superior party, the suzerain. In this arrangement the suzerain agrees to make certain provisions for the vassal. He agrees to defend the vassal in the case of attack, along with permitting the existence of the vassal nation. In addition, the suzerain has the right to take tribute from the vassal at any time. The vassal, for his part, agrees to a position of servanthood but not slavery. Vassals honor the suzerain with tribute and material goods.

There are six basic parts to the format of this treaty. Many scholars believe that the suzerainty treaty form has influenced the structure of the book of Deuteronomy.

(a) The treaty begins with the preamble that identifies the treaty’s author/originator (cf. Deut. 1:1–6a; 5:6a, 23–27).

(b) The second part is the prologue, which contains a review of the past relationship between the vassal and the suzerain constructed in an “I-Thou” format (cf. Deut. 1:6b–3:29; 2:7; 4:32–38). The purpose of this section is to review the previous acts of benevolence demonstrated by the suzerain toward the vassal. The faithfulness of the suzerain to the vassal would perhaps instill some measure of confidence for entrance into this relationship. In Hittite treaties there was often a grace ethic ideology that characterized the prologue and served as a basis of appeal for obedience. The Hittites demonstrated a measure of appreciation for conquered vassals and treated them with dignity by allowing them limited sovereignty. The Assyrians operated with a power ethic that motivated obedience by threatening dismemberment, torture, and even death. Yahweh appealed to Israel on the basis of the grace of redemption (Exod. 20:8–11; Deut. 5:12–15) and the privilege of revelation (Deut. 4:12; cf. Rom. 3:2).

(c) The stipulations are the third part of the treaty form. These are the expectations of the suzerain for the vassal (cf. Deut. 4:1–23; 6:4–7:2; 10:12–22; 12–26). The stipulations call for the vassal to be loyal in war, to loyally return political refugees, and to not murmur against the suzerain and his kingdom. The heart of the stipulation in Deuteronomy is the appeal to “love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength” (6:5), one of the most important verses of the OT.

(d) The deposit and public reading of the treaty is the next division. This section instructs the vassal to place the treaty in his sanctuary and directs the vassal to publicly read the document from one to four times per year (cf. Deut. 10:1–5; 31:9–13). A regular reading was designed to keep the stipulations before the vassal in order to nurture respect for the suzerain.

(e) In the next part, a list of witnesses, usually gods, are called upon to observe the covenant and to punish any breach of it (cf. Deut. 30:19–20).

(f) The final part of the treaty is a section of blessing and curse. This section contains a list of potential rewards for faithfulness and terrifying possibilities of retribution for covenant violations (cf. Deut. 28–29).

4. The royal grant treaty, used in both biblical and secular literature, is somewhat similar to the suzerainty treaty. The distinctive difference is that the obligation of the grant is not on the vassal but rather on the suzerain to protect the rights of the vassal. In this format the curse is directed against any third party that would oppose the vassal or against the suzerain who would act unfaithfully against the vassal.

Covenants in the Bible

Types of covenants. The material on covenant form, content, and structure comes into play when attempts are made to interpret the major covenants recorded in the Bible (Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and new). Initial discussions usually revolve around whether these covenants are conditional or unconditional. Although there is merit to this discussion, covenants should also be understood in light of which party is bearing the treaty obligation. As described above, the obligation of the suzerainty treaty is upon the vassal to fulfill the expectations of the suzerain. In the grant treaty the obligation is placed upon the suzerain to fulfill the treaty promises made to the vassal. There is a sense of conditionality and unconditionality in both treaty forms.

On this basis, the Mosaic covenant is most fittingly understood in light of the suzerainty treaty. This covenant made at Mount Sinai established Israel as a covenant nation. Yahweh never intended to create a relationship with Israel on the basis of this covenant. Rather, he chose this covenant form as the means to regulate his relationship with Israel, the nation that he had just graciously redeemed. The Mosaic covenant addressed every aspect of Israelite life. so that the prophetic charges against the nation’s transgressions were considered covenant violations.

The Abrahamic and Davidic covenants are more like a grant. In the Abrahamic covenant Yahweh is obligating himself to gift Israel with land, seed, and blessing (Gen. 12–17). The halving of animals in Gen. 15:9–20 resembles a covenant-cutting ceremony in which Yahweh, in the form of a smoking firepot, walks between the animals, obligating himself to the terms of the covenant. In the Davidic covenant (2 Sam. 7; Ps. 89), Yahweh obligates himself to provide David and his descendants a king and a kingdom. The new covenant is first referenced by Moses in Deut. 30:6 and then developed more extensively in Jer. 31:31–33 and Ezek. 36. Scholars debate the nature of this covenant and the promises associated with it. Some define it as a grant and speak of it in unconditional terms, while others view it as an administrative covenant. The new covenant anticipates a change in the heart of the vassal that ultimately facilitates keeping of the law. The OT Scriptures see this happening in connection with Israel’s occupation of the land at a future time.

Covenant leadership positions. In addition to the very specific covenant arrangements made by God in the OT defining and regulating the life and future of Israel, God established three key covenant leadership positions for the nation: prophet, priest, and king (Deut. 17–18). Their connection with the covenant is evident from the fact that their origin and function are detailed in the covenant book of Deuteronomy.

God provided a prophet (Deut. 18:9–22) for the nation so that it would not learn the abominations of the Canaanites and surrounding nations. God desired spiritual integrity for his people and established the prophet as his mouthpiece to speak what he commanded (Deut. 18:18–20). The prophet was to be an Israelite who fit a Moses-like pattern (Deut. 18:18–19). The writing and nonwriting prophets often called Israel back to covenant fidelity. They did this by using legal terminology to illustrate covenant violations, thus establishing covenant lawsuits against them. Isaiah 1 is a case made by God against the nation. In this lawsuit God functions as judge, jury, and lawyer.

The priest (Deut. 17:8–13; 18:1–8; 33:8–11) had a threefold function within the covenant community. He was a mediator of people before God and of God before people. This particular function of the priesthood was broad and encompassed much of its work. The priest was a teacher who sought from the Torah resolution to disagreements between parties (cf. Jer. 18:18). It is also worth noting that the teaching of the priest preceded sacrifice. Finally, he was a minister of sacrifice. The priest led Israel in worship and sacrifice, giving instruction concerning what was clean and unclean (Lev. 13–15).

The king was also a provision of the covenant (Deut. 17). Kingship was not a divine accommodation to the desire of Israel (1 Sam. 8) but rather a part of the overall covenant plan of God revealed to Abraham (Gen. 17:16). The promise of kingship was reiterated in Gen. 35:11; 49:10. The duty of the king involved administration of the kingdom on the basis of the word of God (Deut. 17:18–20; cf. Prov. 29:4, 14).

Covenant in the Old Testament. Covenant is a dominant theme that gives cohesiveness to the structure of the OT and distinguishes the history of Israel. The phrase “covenant history” can be used to describe the biblical literature that recounts the events and episodes of Israelite life. It is a macrogenre that characterizes the historical narratives of the OT. Although this large literary corpus of historical narrative shares a covenant perspective, the individual books within the narrative corpus are noted for the attention they give to various aspects of the covenant relationship. For example, Gen. 12–50 develops the covenant promises of seed and blessing through a number of subgenres such as genealogies and family stories. Joshua, on the other hand, engages several military subgenres to recount the tension between the promise of land occupation and the responsibility of Israel to occupy the land. Covenant history is a realistic presentation of the tensions associated with the covenant relationship between Yahweh and the nation of Israel.

Finally, the psalms have a direct covenant connection emphasizing covenant worship. Psalm 119 (esp. vv. 57–64) is filled with covenant terms that relate to God’s word (testimonies, laws, oath, judgments). Marching to the place of worship designated by the covenant is reflected in the Psalms of Ascent.

Covenant in the New Testament. Although the covenant theme is less pervasive in the NT, its christological significance is profound. The NT highlights the significant messianic role of Christ in relation to the covenants. Paul references the new covenant in both books of Corinthians (1 Cor. 11:25; 2 Cor. 3:6). Each celebration of the Lord’s Supper reminds us that the shed blood of Christ is the blood of the new covenant. The new covenant is cut in connection with or on the basis of his death, burial, and resurrection (1 Cor. 11:25). The writer of the book of Hebrews gives detailed attention to how the new covenant functions in contrast to the old Mosaic covenant. The writer explains that Jesus is the guarantor of a better covenant (7:22; 8:6–7). Finally, Paul indicates that we are now considered ministers of the new covenant ministry (2 Cor. 3:6).

In Gen. 2:9 the tree of life is at the very center of the lush landscape of the garden of Eden. In Gen. 3:22–24 the man and the woman are exiled from the garden as a consequence of their disobedience, but more specifically they are barred from the immortality granted by eating the fruit of the tree. Humankind “must not be allowed to reach out . . . and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” A tree granting youth into old age is an image found also in other ancient Near Eastern literature (see the Epic of Gilgamesh) and in iconography of the ancient Near East, in which humans and animals are depicted reaching out to grasp for the tree or its fruit.

In the book of Proverbs the tree of life is a symbol of that which brings joy in life: wisdom (3:18), righteousness (11:30), “a longing fulfilled” (13:12), “a soothing tongue” (15:4). In Revelation the tree represents the reversal of the consequences of humankind’s disobedience in the garden. Eternal life is now again offered to those who persevere in Christ (Rev. 2:7; 22:14). And in Rev. 22:2 the tree of life is part of the scenery of the new Jerusalem. Its branches span over the river of the water of life, and its leaves are imbued with healing for the nations (cf. Ezek. 47:12). See also Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

In Gen. 2–3 the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life are the centerpiece of the verdant landscape of the garden of Eden. Before the formation of the woman, the man is explicitly commanded not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for the ensuing result would be death (2:16–17). Thus, the tree of knowledge is contrasted with the tree of life, whose fruit is imbued with immortality (3:22). Under the influence of the serpent’s persuasion, the woman describes the fruit of the tree as “desirable for gaining wisdom,” and the effect of eating the fruit upon the man and the woman was that “the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked” (3:6–7). The “knowledge of good and evil” represented by the fruit of this tree is a wisdom of humankind’s own fashioning, a law independent of the revealed will of God in the commandment not to eat of the fruit. The consequence of eating the fruit is shame and banishment, not only from the garden itself, but also from the eternal life provided by the tree of life. See also Tree of Life.

Common and valuable for food, beans were cooked while green in the pods or after being dried. Dry beans were threshed and winnowed like cereals and other grains. Beans are mentioned twice in the NIV (2 Sam. 17:28; Ezek. 4:9).

Prior to his crucifixion, Jesus was subject to a Jewish pretrial examination and a formal trial before the Roman governor Pontius Pilate.

In the Gospels the primary components of this judicial process are (1) a private inquiry made by Annas (John 18:13–24); (2) an examination before the Sanhedrin (Matt. 26:57–68 // Mark 14:53–65 // Luke 22:54–71); (3) a hearing before Pilate (Matt. 27:11–14 // Mark 15:2–5 // Luke 23:2–5 // John 18:29–38); (4) a hearing before Herod Antipas (Luke 23:6–16); and (5) Pilate’s verdict (Matt. 27:24–26 // Mark 15:15 // Luke 23:24–25 // John 19:16).

Reasons for Trial and Historicity

The reasons for the hastily devised trial are complex and are rooted in the particular socio-religious environment of Jerusalem at Passover. Jesus’ triumphal entry and his demonstration in the temple were provocative actions that implied his messianic authority. The Judean leadership was fearful that Jesus would create a furor when close to a million Jewish pilgrims were in the environs of Jerusalem at Passover. In this incendiary atmosphere a messianic claim could prompt riots and revolution and force the Roman authorities to intervene militarily, resulting in a reorganizing of authority among the Judean aristocracy (a fear verbalized in John 11:47–53).

The historicity of the trial is questioned on a number of fronts. Would the high priest really convene an emergency nocturnal session of the Sanhedrin to do away with Jesus? Perhaps so, if the situation was desperate enough! A nocturnal hearing would allow Jesus to be tried by the Roman authorities first thing in the morning and to have Jesus taken care of before most Jerusalemites and pilgrims were awake and aware of what was going on. Another primary objection is that there were no Christian witnesses present to relay accounts of the proceedings, especially the private hearings. But one can respond by suggesting that there was probably a desperate curiosity among Jesus’ followers and the crowds in general about what actually took place at the proceedings. Besides the fact that part of the trial took place in public, more information would have been available from attendants, guards, council members, and even from sympathizers with Jesus such as Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea. No one was sworn to secrecy over what transpired. What seems certain is that Jesus had a pretrial hearing with the Sanhedrin and a formal trial before Pilate.

The Judicial Process

During the judicial processes a number of allegations were raised against Jesus. (1) Being a false prophet who was leading the nation astray (Matt. 27:63–64; Luke 23:2, 14). The background to this accusation derives from Deut. 13; 18, concerning false prophets and diviners who lead the nation into idolatry and make false prophecies. This charge is made explicit in the Babylonian Talmud: “Jesus was hanged on the eve of Passover. . . . He is going forth to be stoned because he practiced sorcery and enticed and led Israel astray” (b. Sanh. 43a [cf. 107b]). (2) Speaking against the temple (Matt. 26:61; Mark 14:58). What is “false” about the witnesses against Jesus is not that Jesus did not speak and act against the temple (see Matt. 23–24; Mark 13; Luke 21), but that their testimony did not agree and that they misunderstood Jesus to be saying that he would rebuild another temple of a kind similar to the first. (3) Forbidding the payment of taxes (Luke 23:2). (4) Blasphemy for claiming to be the Son of God (Matt. 26:65; Mark 14:64). (5) Claiming to be the king of the Jews (Mark 15:2; John 18:33).

According to the Fourth Gospel, Jesus initially was led to Annas, at which time he was briefly interviewed about “his disciples and his teaching” (John 18:19). Annas was the father-in-law of Caiaphas and had been the high priest previously (AD 6–15). High priest evidently was a lifetime office, which is why Annas was still addressed as “high priest” (John 18:22–23).

Jesus again was led out, this time to Caiaphas the current high priest. At this point Jesus had a “night trial” before Caiaphas (an act of questionable legality, according to rabbinic law). The basic flow of events includes Caiaphas conducting a cross-examination of Jesus (Matt. 26:59–66; Mark 14:55–64; Luke 22:67–71; John 18:24), Jesus being beaten and abused by his captors (Matt. 26:67–68; Mark 14:65; Luke 22:63–65), and then the Sanhedrin convening at dawn to ratify the night proceedings against Jesus (Matt. 27:1; Mark 15:1; Luke 22:66–71; John 18:28). During the proceedings a number of accusations were brought against Jesus, but the climax was Jesus’ response to the high priest that he would see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven, which combines Dan. 7:13 with Ps. 110:1. The notion that Jesus would share the divine throne with God was deemed blasphemous by the high priest and settled and exceeded the messianic question put to Jesus. The participants of the proceedings condemned Jesus as “worthy of death” (Matt. 26:66; Mark 14:64).

The gathering of the Sanhedrin probably is not a second trial, but more likely it is for the purpose of ratifying the charges made against Jesus. The decision of the Sanhedrin was that Jesus be handed over to Pilate (Matt. 27:2; Mark 15:1; Luke 23:1; John 18:28) for execution, as the Judean leadership did not have the right to exercise the death penalty without official approval (John 18:31). Since blasphemy was not a capital crime under Roman law, however, the delegation emphasized the political nature of Jesus’ message in order to secure the death penalty. Before Pilate, Jesus was charged with a number of offenses, including leading the nation astray, forbidding payment of taxes to Caesar, and claiming to be a king (cf. Luke 23:2). The main features of this segment of the proceedings are the following: (1) Jesus is charged with making kingly claims; (2) Pilate proposes to release Jesus to the Judean crowd as their king, but the crowd chooses Barabbas instead; (3) Jesus is handed over for execution, before which he is mocked and ruthlessly beaten by the Roman soldiers. In all accounts Pilate is portrayed as feeble and self-interested, and his apparent sympathy for Jesus was born out of his habitual opposition to the designs of the high priest.

From a theological perspective, the trial narratives demonstrate that the kingdom of God comes through the kingship of the crucified, and that Jesus is the Suffering Servant of Isa. 53, who was led like a lamb to the slaughter and pierced for our transgressions.

One of the twelve tribes, descended from the eighth son of Jacob, born to Jacob by Zilpah, Leah’s handmaid (Gen. 30:12–13). The tribe of Asher is specifically recorded as participating in the enslavement in Egypt (Exod. 1:4), the rescue from Egypt and the failure to enter the land of promise (Num. 1:40–41; 13:13; 26:44–47), the conquest of the land (Josh. 19:24–31), and the failure to drive out the Canaanites as God had commanded (Judg. 1:31–32). The tribal allotment afforded Asher included the western hills of Galilee and the Phoenician coast north of the Carmel range and south of Sidon. Since the area was coastal, the land there was fertile and used for both olive and grape production (Deut. 33:24). Furthermore, since this area was the only part of Israel’s inheritance that included natural harbors, Asher also seems to have participated in some level of naval trade (Judg. 5:17). Interestingly, some Egyptian texts from the first part of the Nineteenth Dynasty (c. thirteenth century BC) apparently mention an Asher in this very region. In the NT, Asher is listed as the tribe of Anna, the prophetess who blessed the infant Jesus (Luke 2:36–38). Asher is also included among Revelation’s listing of the tribes sealed for protection (Rev. 7:6).

After Genesis, almost every scriptural reference to “Benjamin” is to the tribe of Benjamin, named after the youngest son of Jacob. Jacob’s blessing “Benjamin is a ravenous wolf” (Gen. 49:27) was prophetic, as the tribe of Benjamin came to be known for its prowess in warfare (Judg. 3:15; 1 Chron. 8:40; 2 Sam. 1:22). The land allotted for the tribe of Benjamin was “between the tribes of Judah and Joseph” (Josh. 18:11–20). Although the tribe of Benjamin was the second smallest during the exodus (Num. 1:36–37; Ps. 68:27), several prominent biblical figures are descended from it, including King Saul (1 Sam. 9:1), Queen Esther (Esther 2:5), and the apostle Paul (Rom. 11:1).

One of the twelve tribes of Israel, the descendants of the fifth of Jacob’s twelve sons, Dan, whose mother was Bilhah, Rachel’s servant. Although Dan’s early history included the notable Oholiab, a chief craftsman of the sanctuary built under the direction of Moses (Exod. 31:6; 35:34; 36:1, 2; 38:23), it was otherwise unremarkable. Dan participated with the other tribes in responsibilities shared across all Israel. For example, the camp of Dan is named as rearguard of the wilderness tabernacle (Num. 2:25, 31). Other instances include sending a representative to spy out the land, being counted in the census, and being instructed by Moses to participate in deciding the territorial allotments (Num. 13:12; 26:42; 34:22). However, the harsh nature of Jacob’s blessing for his son Dan, in which he prophesied that Dan will be not only a judge but also a serpent and a viper, rightly suggests that Dan’s future would be troubled (Gen. 49:16–17).

The Territory of Dan

The postconquest tribal allotment to Dan was a roughly U-shaped area to the northwest of Jerusalem, between the allotments of Judah and Ephraim. It included the cities along the northern border of Judah—Zorah, Eshtaol, Timnah, Ekron—and extended to the Mediterranean coast, including Joppa. However, the text immediately notes that Dan was unable to possess its territory. Instead, Dan moved from there to the northern city of Leshem (Laish), situated at the foot of Mount Hermon and near the headwaters of the Jordan. After brutally attacking Leshem, Dan took it over (Josh. 19:40–48).

The book of Judges provides additional insight into these events. Dan had trouble occupying its own territory because of the Amorites, who kept Dan in the hills away from the coastal plain (1:34). Dan was also pressured by the Philistines (13:1). God eventually raised Samson, a Danite, as judge of Israel against the Philistines (13:2–5; cf. Gen. 49:16). In the end, however, rather than defeating the Philistines, Samson was ensnared by them (Judg. 14–16).

The Samson narrative is followed by the detailed story of the Danites’ move to the north (Judg. 17–18). Having concluded that they must relocate in order to settle, the tribe sent out scouts to find a new home. They met Micah’s Levite along the way and eventually came to Laish, where they saw a fertile and prosperous land populated by peaceful, unsuspecting inhabitants under the protection of the Sidonians, a remote distance to the west. After the scouts’ report, the Danites raised an army of six hundred, which returned north via Micah’s house. Taking the Levite and Micah’s idol with them, they proceeded to Laish. Encountering no opposing forces, they attacked and burned the city.

These events help explain an otherwise perplexing verse incorporated into Moses’ farewell blessing to the twelve tribes (Deut. 33:22). Moses refers to Dan as a lion’s cub “springing out of Bashan.” Although “Bashan” is a place name, it is not otherwise associated with Dan. However, bashan also means “snake.” Dan, as a cub rather than a full-grown lion, was not fierce enough to claim its divine allotment and thus was leaping away from its oppressors, the snake. But Dan, a lion nonetheless, was indeed fierce enough to lay waste to the peaceful, isolated Laish.

In due course, the Danites rebuilt Laish, renamed it “Dan,” and set up Micah’s idol as a shrine there. This initiated the city’s long history as a seat of apostasy (Judg. 18:28–31), which was furthered by the sin of Jeroboam, who placed one of his two golden calves there (1 Kings 12:29–30; 2 Kings 10:29).

Dan throughout the Bible

Dan’s extreme northern location as compared to Beersheba in the Negev contributed to the expression “from Dan to Beersheba” as a common description for the entire land of Israel (Judg. 20:1; 1 Sam. 3:20; 2 Sam. 3:10; 17:11; 24:2, 15; 1 Kings 4:25; 1 Chron. 21:2; 2 Chron. 30:5; cf. Amos 8:14).

Dan is mentioned by Ezekiel in his eschatological vision of Israel as receiving its portion of the land (48:1–2, 32). However, Dan is omitted from the list of the twelve tribes in Rev. 7:5–8, where it is replaced by Manasseh. Although lists of the twelve tribes often count Joseph twice (by naming his sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, instead), the omitted tribe usually is Levi because of its priestly status. In this case, Dan’s absence is often attributed to the tribe’s persistent apostasy.

Elsewhere in Scripture, the tribe of Dan is listed as one of the tribes, along with Reuben, Gad, Asher, Zebulun, and Naphtali, standing on Mount Ebal, the mount from which curses on Israel were pronounced (Deut. 27:13); and it is reported that Dan failed to fight alongside Deborah and Barak (Judg. 5:17), was conquered by Ben-Hadad in the context of his pact with King Asa of Judah (1 Kings 15:20; 2 Chron. 16:4), and produced Huram-Abi, a craftsman for Solomon’s temple (2 Chron. 2:14).

One of the tribes of Israel, descended from Joseph’s second son, Ephraim (Gen. 46:20). Occasionally, the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh were described together as the tribe of Joseph (Deut. 33:13), but usually they were listed separately in censuses, tribal movements, and territorial descriptions (Num. 2:24). The territory of Ephraim included the central hill country, with Manasseh to the north and Benjamin to the south (Josh. 16). The territory of Ephraim played a prominent role during the period of the judges. Deborah held court in the hill country of Ephraim (Judg. 4:5). The Ephraimites contended with Gideon (Judg. 8:1) and later went to war with Jephthah (12:4). Ephraim played a role in the revolts against David, with Absalom being killed in Ephraim (2 Sam. 18:6) and Sheba being from Ephraim (20:21). Ephraim grew in prominence to represent the entire northern kingdom (Isa. 7:2; Ezek. 37:16).

One of the twelve tribes of Israel, descended from Gad, a son of Jacob born to Leah’s maidservant Zilpah. After the conquest of Canaan, the tribe of Gad (sometimes referred to as the “Gadites”) settled with the Transjordanian tribes, between Manasseh to the north and Reuben to the south, in a U shape that wraps around Bashan, the southern part of Manasseh. Sometimes the Bible equates the land with part of Gilead (Num. 32:25–26). One of its important cities was Ramoth Gilead (Josh. 21:38), where king Ahab was mortally wounded. Gad remained part of Israel until the kingdom came to an end, and its inhabitants eventually were taken into exile by the Assyrians.

One of the twelve tribes of Israel, descended from the ninth son of Jacob, by Leah. The censuses in Num. 1:29; 26:23 indicate Issachar was the third or fourth largest tribe. The territory of Issachar lay southwest of the Sea of Galilee, including the Jezreel Valley (Josh. 19:17–23). In the period of the judges, soldiers of Issachar came to the aid of Deborah and Barak (Judg. 5:15), and the judge Abimelek was an Issacharite (Judg. 10:1). Baasha was also an Issacharite (1 Kings 15:27).

Descendants of Judah, the fourth son of Jacob. The tribe of Judah had special prominence throughout the OT and was often a political and military leader among the tribes. Joshua 15 describes the geographic territory of the tribe as the land between the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean Sea, with a northern border roughly a straight line from the northernmost point of the Dead Sea directly west to the Mediterranean Sea. The southern border similarly was roughly a straight line from the southernmost point of the Dead Sea west to the Mediterranean Sea. In 2 Kings 23:8, Judah is described as encompassing the area from Geba (about eight miles north of Jerusalem) to Beersheba (about forty miles south of Jerusalem). As a premonarchical tribe, Judah never realized its borders but rather occupied the hill country in the eastern part of the described area. The Philistines controlled the coastal plains areas and hampered Judah’s expansion. They were not subdued until the time of David.

The independent political nature of the tribe is highlighted in the fact that the Song of Deborah (Judg. 5) lists Benjamin (the tribe directly north of Judah) as the southernmost point in Israel. Furthermore, Saul never consolidated his authority over the tribe of Judah during his reign. Contributing to this independent nature was the hilly geography of the area, which naturally isolated it from the rest of Israel. The tribe of Judah has a relatively short history because even before the time of David’s consolidation of the tribes, the distinction between the tribe of Judah and the area that would later become the kingdom of Judah was beginning to be blurred. This was further exacerbated with the revolt of Absalom, which further divided the kingdom ideologically between the northern tribes and Judah. Finally, with the death of Solomon, the tribe’s distinction was essentially lost, as the new kingdom of Judah—which encompassed the tribal areas of Judah along with much of Benjamin, Simeon, parts of the old Jebusite kingdom (including Jerusalem), and some of the Philistine kingdom—was formed.

One of the twelve tribes of Israel. Along with Ephraim, it is traced to Joseph rather than Jacob. Manasseh and Ephraim were the two sons of Joseph, each of whom received a tribal portion (resulting in Joseph getting a double portion) along with the sons of Jacob (Gen. 48). At the same time, Manasseh, the older brother, lost his birthright to Ephraim when Jacob crossed his hands and put his right hand on Ephraim when giving the inheritance. This follows the tradition in Genesis of the younger son supplanting the older. The exact status of the tribe of Manasseh is a complex issue, but it is clear that Manasseh and Ephraim were rivals for status and power during the early northern kingdom monarchy. Based on the land descriptions in the book of Joshua, Manasseh would have had the largest tribal territory. It also uniquely had land on both sides of the Jordan River, which may have contributed to Manasseh being one of the least unified tribes in Israel. Many of the most important cities of the northern kingdom were located in Manasseh, including the capital cities of Shechem and Samaria and the major military cities of Megiddo and Jezreel.

The tribe descended from Naphtali, son of Jacob and Bilhah. This tribe settled in northern Israel, east of Asher and south of Dan, not far from the Sea of Kinnereth (Sea of Galilee). It is noted that, like other tribes, it failed to completely drive out the Canaanites in its designated territory, which contributed to the difficulties that the nation experienced after the passing of Joshua’s generation (Judg. 1:33). Naphtali has a quiet history in Scripture but is mentioned in the prophecy of Isa. 9:1–7, which Matthew cites in connection with Jesus’ ministry in Galilee (Matt. 4:12–17). Ezekiel also describes an assigned land area for Naphtali in his temple vision (Ezek. 48:3–4).

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).

In the wilderness, the tribe of Simeon camped between Reuben and Gad. The Simeonites were allotted land within Judah’s territory. Their subsequent absorption fulfilled Jacob’s prophecy of scattering (Gen. 49:5–7).

Descended from the tenth son of Jacob, Zebulun, this tribe did not drive out the Canaanites but instead subjected them to forced labor (Judg. 1:30). During the wilderness journey this tribe was one of the foremost in marching order, along with the tribes of Judah and Issachar. It responded to Gideon’s summoning (Judg. 6:35) and also helped to enthrone David in Hebron (1 Chron. 12:33). It was later dispossessed by the Assyrians under Tiglath-pileser III (744–727 BC). Matthew 4:13–16 points to Jesus’ ministry in the regions of Zebulun and Naphtali in Galilee as the fulfillment of Isa. 9:1–2.

Sons of Jacob

Genesis 29–30, 35 records the birth of the sons of Jacob, which provides a covenantal and family basis for the later confederation of a dozen independent tribes of Semitic peoples. They shared a common history, culture, religion, and set of traditions that served for a time to bind them together as a single nation. According to the family records, the tribes were named after their forebears, who were born in the following manner. Jacob’s first (and unloved) wife, Leah, bore Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah, in that order. Then his beloved Rachel gave him her maid Bilhah, who bore Dan and Naphtali. Leah’s maid then bore Gad and Asher. Then Leah bore Issachar and Zebulun. Finally, Rachel bore Joseph and Benjamin. At root, the later history of the tribes is a family history, traceable to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Thus, the story of the tribes begins in the early second millennium BC.

Genesis was written at a period considerably after the time of the patriarchs, and thus written with the awareness that the characterizations of the patriarchs reflected in some way the temperament of the individual tribes. The first story told about the actions of Jacob’s sons is how Simeon and Levi took terrible vengeance on the city of Shechem for the rape of their sister Dinah. This brought about Jacob’s rebuke. Jacob feared that this action would bring further retaliation upon his family (Gen. 34). The history of the patriarchs comes to its high point in the story of Joseph, an account that spans Gen. 37–50. Joseph was the brother revealed in dreams to be elected by God to rule. His brothers’ jealousy led them to seek to rid themselves of him. Reuben, the firstborn, is characterized as being the responsible one, wanting to do him no harm. But in Reuben’s absence, Judah led the others in selling Joseph into slavery. God was with Joseph, however, and through a series of events God made Joseph the leader of Egypt, fulfilling the prophetic dreams.

Genesis connects this family story with later tribal history. As prophetic dreams revealed Joseph’s destiny to rule over Egypt, Jacob’s blessing in Gen. 49 reveals the destiny of the later tribes. Reuben lost his double-portion inheritance of the firstborn due to his dishonoring his father (Gen. 35:22). This honor is tacitly conferred on Joseph in Gen. 48. Jacob said that Levi would be dispersed among Israel. As the priestly tribe, Levi inherited no land. Judah was predicted to be the tribe of kings.

Wilderness and Conquest

In the wilderness wanderings of Israel, the campsite was organized by tribe (Num. 2). At its center was the tabernacle. The tribe of Levi formed an inner circle that surrounded it. At the entrance to the tabernacle (facing east) were the priests, the sons of Aaron. The other divisions of Levi were the Merarites, the Gershonites, and the Kohathites. These together formed the inner circle that guarded the holy place. Levi was the holiest tribe of Israel, the only tribe allowed to maintain and service God’s dwelling place. The outer perimeter of the encampment was formed by twelve tribes (the tribe of Joseph counted as two). The eastern front was dominated by Judah and included Issachar and Zebulun. Dan, Asher, and Naphtali were to the north; Reuben, Simeon, and Gad to the south; and to the west were Joseph (Ephraim and Manasseh) and Benjamin.

When the people were on the move, the priests went in the front carrying the ark of the covenant, following the pillar of cloud. When it came to rest over a place, there the priests would set down the ark. Behind them followed Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun. After them came the Gershonites and the Merarites, carrying the bundled tabernacle, which they set up around the ark when the people made camp. Reuben, Simeon, and Gad took their places. Then came the Kohathites, who carried the furnishings and vessels for the tabernacle. Next followed Joseph (Ephraim and Manasseh) and Benjamin. Finally, as a rearguard, came Dan, accompanied by Asher and Naphtali (Num. 10:11–33).

Once their sojourn in the wilderness was over, the Israelites began to conquer the land of Canaan. Joshua allotted portions of land to each tribe (Josh. 13–21). The descendants of Joseph constituted two tribes, Manasseh and Ephraim. Each of those two received an inheritance; thus, Joseph can be said to have received a double portion as though firstborn. The Jordan River formed a natural border down the middle of the land. To its east were parts of Manasseh, Gad, and Reuben. The other tribes were to the west. The southernmost tribe was Judah. Within Judah was Simeon, which over time was absorbed into Judah. Levi had no land for an inheritance, since Yahweh was Levi’s inheritance—fulfilling Jacob’s prophecy of Levi and Simeon being scattered throughout Israel. Immediately north of Judah were Dan and Benjamin. The remaining tribes were more northern still. So that they would not forget Yahweh, the tribes across the Jordan built an alternative altar, not for sacrifice but rather as a reminder of the true and living God (Josh. 22).

Judges

The history of the conquest underscores the fact that the tribes failed to drive out the inhabitants of the land completely. Many cities remained centers for non-Israelite culture and religion. “When Joshua had grown old, the Lord said to him, ‘You are now very old, and there are still very large areas of land to be taken over’” (Josh. 13:1). Judges 1 lists many peoples that continued to live alongside the Israelites.

Some of these peoples became incorporated into the mix of tribes. Rahab and her family from Jericho became integrated into the tribe of Judah (Josh. 2–6). The Gibeonites were a Canaanite people group who were incorporated into Israel (Josh. 9). Ruth the Moabite married into Judah (Ruth 4). Uriah the Hittite is an example of a Canaanite who was fully naturalized, to the extent that he kept himself ceremonially pure and fought in God’s holy wars for Israel (2 Sam. 11:11).

The book of Judges records the relative success or failure of each tribe to subdue and settle its own territory, and Judah consistently stands out as superior in this respect. Judges 1:2 puts Judah first. Judah provided leadership and support to Simeon, helping it to fulfill its own calling (1:17). After describing Judah’s success, Judg. 1 delineates the other tribes’ failures.

Two stories at the end of Judges illustrate the character of Judah in this period. Whenever Bethlehem and the other cities of Judah are the setting, sojourners and others are treated hospitably, have no fears, and prosper. This is true also of the book of Ruth. But when folk travel elsewhere—to Moab or north to Ephraim or Benjamin—they meet only trouble. Ephraim provided no protection to Micah when the lawless Danites overran his house (Judg. 18). Moab brought only famine, barrenness, and death (Ruth 1).

But the worst case of all is the Benjamite city of Gibeah (Judg. 19–20). There, the sin of Sodom was repeated as men surrounded the host’s house and demanded the sojourner. All Israel took up arms to destroy the wicked city and to punish the wicked tribe. As in the first two verses of Judges, God appointed Judah to the leadership position (Judg. 20:18). Judah then did to Benjamin what God had done to Sodom, almost wiping out the tribe.

United Kingdom

Nevertheless, when the tribes came together and demanded a king, the first king whom God gave them, Saul, was from the tribe of Benjamin (1 Sam. 9:17). Benjamin was situated midway between Judah of the south and the northern tribes. Saul was successful in leading the army of Israel, and for a time he enjoyed God’s blessing. But in the end, God rejected him and sent Samuel the prophet to anoint a Bethlehemite, David, to become the next king. However, upon Saul’s death, his son Ish-Bosheth (Ishbaal) claimed the throne (2 Sam. 2:8–9), around 1011 BC.

There followed a bitter civil war between the house of Saul, backed by the northern tribes, and the house of David, backed by Judah. After seven years, David had grown stronger and Ish-Bosheth weaker, until at Hebron David was finally acknowledged as king of all Israel (2 Sam. 5:3). David’s throne would last for centuries, until the destruction of Jerusalem. In the NT, David’s greater son Jesus inherited the throne. Thus, Jacob’s prophecy that the tribe of Judah would hold the scepter was fulfilled.

The northern tribes did not forget that they had once fought against David. David was caught in a scandal when his troops were in battle, and this may have further lessened their loyalty to him (2 Sam. 12). When his son Absalom rebelled and proclaimed himself king, the northern tribes once more allied themselves against David, and another civil war ensued. Although David won back his throne, the dissatisfaction of the northern tribes with the house of David continued (2 Sam. 15–19).

After David died, Solomon inherited his throne (971 BC). Throughout his reign, Solomon placed burdens on the tribes. He divided his kingdom into administrative districts that did not exactly correspond to the tribal territories. Dan and Zebulun were folded into other territories, and Asher seemed to have been ceded to Phoenicia (1 Kings 4). Thus, Solomon’s kingdom systematically weakened tribal identities. He laid a levy upon the tribes of Israel of thousands of men to provide a labor force for his building projects (1 Kings 5). Solomon built and consecrated the temple, and Jerusalem thus became both the political and religious center of the nation. The price for this, however, was the exacerbated discontent of the northern tribes.

Upon Solomon’s death, the tribes confronted his son Rehoboam with a demand to lighten Solomon’s “harsh labor and . . . heavy yoke” (1 Kings 12:4). Rehoboam foolishly replied, “My father made your yoke heavy; I will make it even heavier. My father scourged you with whips; I will scourge you with scorpions” (1 Kings 12:14). The northern tribes finally abandoned David’s house and thus became an independent political and religious state (931 BC).

Divided Kingdom

Throughout the period of the divided kingdom, tribal identities became less important, for their loyalties were now dominated by the reigning king of either nation. The border between the northern and the southern kingdoms was more or less a straight line, from Joppa on the west near the Mediterranean, to the upper tip of the Dead Sea. This cut through Dan, Ephraim, and Benjamin, leaving Simeon surrounded by Judah. Jerusalem was just south of the border. The first king of the north, Jeroboam, placed golden calves just north of the border, in Bethel, and also at the northern end of his kingdom, in the city of Dan. These served as cultic alternatives to the temple in Jerusalem for the duration of the northern kingdom. He also modified the law of Moses to allow for non-Levitical priests and a different liturgical calendar. The northern kingdom was called “Israel” (its capital was Samaria), and the southern kingdom was called “Judah” (1 Kings 12:25–33).

For half a century war ensued between the two kingdoms. The two formed an alliance during the reigns of Ahab and his sons. King Ahab of Israel gave his daughter Athaliah to be married to King Jehoshaphat’s son Jehoram. Together the kingdoms fought against common enemies, such as Syria and Moab. They successfully turned back the superpower of the day, Assyria.

Under King Ahab and his wife Jezebel, Baal worship was aggressively promoted at the expense of traditional Yahwism. During this period Elijah and Elisha called the people back to the God of their ancestors, but with little success (1 Kings 17–2 Kings 13). A small group of faithful worshipers called the “sons of the prophets” did remain true to Yahweh, but most of Israel abandoned him. Hosea and Amos later also warned Israel, but their calls went unheeded. Ahab and Jezebel’s daughter Athaliah married Jehoram, and both of them promoted Baal worship in Judah just as in Israel. Thus, the people of Yahweh had become the people of Baal. Jezebel’s son Joram ruled Israel upon Ahab’s death, and Athaliah’s son Ahaziah ruled Judah upon Jehoram’s death.

Elisha secretly anointed one of Joram’s generals, Jehu, to bring the Omride dynasty to an end in Israel and to become the next king (2 Kings 9). Jehu killed both kings and Jezebel, and he destroyed all remnants of Ahab’s family. He also slaughtered the worshipers of Baal: “so Jehu destroyed Baal worship in Israel” (10:28). Upon the death of her son the king, Athaliah seized the throne and did to David’s house what Jehu had done to Ahab’s: she had every family member killed.

But one infant survived: Joash. He was secretly raised in the temple of Yahweh until he was seven years old. Then his supporters proclaimed him king. Athaliah cried out, “Treason! Treason!” (2 Kings 11:14), and the priest Jehoiada had her put to death. The place and objects of Baal worship were destroyed, ending state-sponsored Baalism in Judah (11:17–18).

Fall of Both Kingdoms

After both kingdoms’ period of infatuation with Baal (under the domination of the Omrides), their history as nations continued to their final fall. In Israel, the people never gave up Jeroboam’s perversion of the law of Moses. In Judah, kings varied widely in their regard for the law of Moses; sometimes they were faithful, sometimes very unfaithful. Meanwhile, Assyria was a constant threat. During the reign of the good king Hezekiah, Judah was overrun by the forces of the Assyrian king Sennacherib. God miraculously delivered Jerusalem (2 Kings 18). However, there was no such deliverance for Israel. Samaria was besieged for three years and finally taken (722 BC). Most of the population was deported (17:5–18). Other people groups were transplanted there who learned the law of Moses and feared Yahweh along with their own gods (17:24–41).

At this point in their history, only Judah remained as a political entity; the northern tribes of Israel were lost. After the faithful king Hezekiah, Judah’s next significant king was Manasseh. He is described in 2 Kings as the king most offensive to God. To categorize him, it was not enough to compare him unfavorably with David (see 2 Kings 14:3) or to equate him with Ahab and Jezebel (see 8:18). Rather, Manasseh was compared to the pagan nations that Joshua had driven out of the land, which were destroyed because of their wickedness. Manasseh was the last straw. Because of his complete abandonment to idolatry, God determined to make an end of Jerusalem (21:11–15).

Yet still the judgment was delayed. Two years after Manasseh’s death, Josiah reigned on the throne of David, and early in his career the Book of the Law was rediscovered in the temple. Josiah called for national repentance, and for a time Judah got rid of its idols and returned to God (2 Kings 23). But this repentance was relatively short-lived.

Josiah was the last good king of Judah. God sent Judah prophets such as Jeremiah, but they went unheeded. In the end, God sent King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon up against his own beloved city, Jerusalem. Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed, many of its people killed, and most of those who were left carried into exile to Babylon.

Exile and Restoration

The fall of Jerusalem in 586 BC essentially ended the existence of the tribes as independent political entities. For the remainder of their history they were, almost without exception, under the heel of great foreign powers. At this point, they were called “Jews.” Nebuchadnezzar conscripted some of the younger men to serve in his court (Dan. 1). The deportees remained in Babylon until its empire fell to the Medes and the Persians under Cyrus the Great in 539 BC.

Cyrus issued a decree at that time allowing the Jews to return to their ancestral land and rebuild the temple of Yahweh. They began to migrate back to the land of promise and began their efforts to rebuild the temple and the city of Jerusalem. These efforts continued under a succession of Persian kings. Although the Jews were home and able once again to worship God in the way he had specified in the law, Nehemiah lamented that they were little more than slaves, since they were subject to Persia (Neh. 9:36). Gone was the dynasty of David, gone were most of the tribes, and gone was the greatness of days past. The sins of their fathers had brought them to this sad situation.

In the return to the land, the genealogies of the returnees were very important. These preserved family and tribal identities so that their lineages would not be lost. The books that originated in the restoration period preserve these lists (see 1 Chron. 1–9).

Persia and the entire ancient world eventually were conquered by Alexander the Great. His successors divided the land after his death; two generals controlled Syria to the north and Egypt to the south of Palestine. They constantly squabbled over their borders, which included Palestine. Finally, Antiochus IV Epiphanes (r. 175–164 BC), king of Syria, decided to turn Jerusalem into a Greek city. He brought great pressure on the Jews to abandon their faith. Jews found with a copy of the law were killed, and circumcision of infants was forbidden. He ransacked the temple and placed an idol in it. Some Jews abandoned their faith, but others resisted. Finally, Antiochus died, and the Jews for a short time enjoyed independence. Over time, the Roman Empire engulfed Palestine. Herod the Great ruled as king of the Jews for Rome in the years 37–4 BC. Upon Herod’s death, his kingdom was divided among his sons.

New Testament

The Jews in Judea in Jesus’ day had learned to find their national, ethnic, and cultural identity in the law of Moses. They dutifully followed the purity laws, especially in keeping the Sabbath. Their religion was centered on the temple, and they kept Passover and the other prescribed obligations. Although the one remaining tribe, Judah, no longer could boast of a king on the throne of David or even independence, it was a nation whose people thought of themselves as Yahweh’s people. By Jesus’ time, they anticipated that a descendant of David, a Messiah, would arise to restore the lost kingdom of David.

Although the northern tribes were lost, there was some limited continuing awareness of tribal identity in this period. The book of Esther’s Mordecai is from the tribe of Benjamin, and there are a number of references to Benjamin in the intertestamental literature (e.g., 2 Macc. 3:4). Anna the prophetess was from the tribe of Asher (Luke 2:36). Paul knew himself to be from the tribe of Benjamin (Rom. 11:1; Phil. 3:5). He used his knowledge of this fact to help bolster his argument that he was truly a Jew. The Levites also survived the exile, and the priestly caste continued. The kingly and priestly tribes remained, with a few others.

Jesus is presented in Matt. 1 as a direct descendant of David through the line of kings. He is the promised Messiah (John 1:41), the “Lion of the tribe of Judah” (Rev. 5:5). Jesus promised his twelve disciples that some day they would rule over the tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:28). In Christ, the definition of the tribes of Israel had changed. Gentiles were now grafted onto the olive tree of Israel (Rom. 11:17). Revelation 7:4–10 records the number from each tribe who bear the seal of the Lamb. After hearing this, John turned and saw them: they were revealed to be a vast company of the redeemed from every tribe on earth. Thus, the church had spiritually become the twelve tribes of Israel.

In AD 70 the temple was destroyed. Soon afterward, Israel was scattered, not to be a nation again in the promised land until 1948.

The NT conception of tribulation is perhaps best summarized in Paul’s pastoral reminder, “We must go through many hardships to enter the kingdom of God” (Acts 14:22). The Greek term used here for “hardship” is thlipsis.

In the NT, thlipsis may refer generally to the sufferings and afflictions that occur in the normal course of human living (John 16:21; Acts 7:11; 1 Cor. 7:28; James 1:27). In its more common and specific usage, “tribulation” relates directly to the experience of the people of God as a consequence of their faithful proclamation of the gospel. Thus, in the parable of the sower, “tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word” (Matt. 13:21; Mark 4:17 ESV).

One of the primary aspects of the biblical view of tribulation relates to the tribulation and suffering of Christ as the pattern for the church (Rev. 1:9). That his followers would suffer tribulation was made explicit by Jesus to his followers in the Farewell Discourse (John 14–17). There he informs them, “In the world you will have tribulation” (John 16:33 ESV).

Closely related to the impending tribulation that confronts all believers is the NT affirmation that the sufferings of Christ serve as the model for the tribulation of the people of God. Jesus thus warns the disciples, “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first” (John 15:18; cf. 15:20). Paul continues this concept in Col. 1:24 (cf. 2 Cor. 1:5; 4:10–12; Phil. 3:10; 1 Pet. 4:13). The tribulation that the people of God experience serves to equip them in a variety of ways. Most significantly, tribulation results in the transformation of the people of God into the likeness of Christ (Rom. 5:3–5; 2 Cor. 4:8–12).

The book of Acts records the fulfillment of Jesus’ warning to his followers: it was because of persecution that the church was scattered (Acts 8:1). Later, Paul notes that he has experienced tribulation (2 Cor. 1:8), as did the church in Thessalonica (1 Thess. 1:6) and the recipients of Hebrews (Heb. 10:33). The reality of “tribulation” is seen in the exhortation of John to the church in Smyrna (Rev. 2:9).

Another important aspect of the tribulations that await the people of God in the NT era is the relationship of tribulation to the kingdom of God (cf. Matt. 24:9–14; Rev. 1:9; 7:14). Many hold to the notion that there will be an intensification of tribulation immediately prior to the return of Christ (Matt. 24:31; Mark 13:24).

The “great tribulation” of Rev. 7:14 has been interpreted in a variety of ways. Some understand this as a future event limited to seven or three and one-half years. Many others, however, associate this event with the tribulation, suffering, and affliction of the people of God throughout the entire era from the resurrection to the second coming. The expression “great tribulation” alludes to Dan. 12:1. The Danielic context incorporates a time of persecution and suffering among the people of God. The use of “tribulation” in Revelation (Rev. 1:9; 2:9–10, 22; 7:14) corresponds with the persecution of the people of God. A comparison with Matt. 24:21 confirms this conclusion. Therefore, regardless of how one reads the “great tribulation” in Rev. 7:14, as present or future reality, it appears that this tribulation refers to the suffering of God’s people and not to an exemption from it (cf. John 17:15).

A high-ranking Roman military officer. Translated “commander” in the NIV, the Greek word chiliarchos designates an officer (Lat. tribunus) in charge of a cohort, which ideally consisted of six hundred soldiers, including over a hundred cavalry (Mark 6:21; John 18:12; Acts 21:31–33, 37; 22:24, 26–29; 23:10, 15, 17–19, 22; 24:22; 25:23; Rev. 6:15; 19:18). A legion consisted of ten cohorts and typically had four to six tribunes. At the arrest of Jesus (John 18:12), it is likely that only a small detachment from a cohort was present.

In the ancient biblical world, tribute was a payment made by one state to another, which was a mark of subjugation. The state required to pay the tribute (the vassal) often was a conquered people. The payment could consist of precious metals, currency, commodities, animals, and even human beings. Tribute allowed the sovereign state (the suzerain) to increase residual capital and gain large amounts of valuable materials, at the same time impoverishing and severely weakening the subjugated state (making future rebellions unlikely). Its administration was straightforward: every year the vassal was required to bring tribute to the suzerain. If such a payment was not made, it was a tacit sign of rebellion, and the suzerain sent a military force to punish the rebels.

At times, Israelite kings had occasions to impose tribute on other nations (e.g., 2 Sam. 8:2, 6; 1 Kings 4:21; 2 Chron. 17:11; cf. Ezra 4:20). However, in most instances described in the Bible, Israel appears to be on the other side of the tributary arrangement and makes monetary payments to foreign nations. Some of these instances are clear examples of Israel paying regular tribute payments to their overlord (e.g., Judg. 3:15; 2 Kings 23:33; Ezra 4:13), while others refer to bribes paid to foreign nations in order to secure military assistance against another enemy (1 Kings 15:18; 2 Kings 16:8) or settlement payments made to an attacker in exchange for its withdrawal (2 Kings 12:18; 18:15–16). On other occasions, the wealth of Israel is taken by foreign monarchs as spoils of war rather than as regular tribute (e.g., 1 Kings 14:26; 2 Kings 24:13–14). However, in nearly all these circumstances such payments resulted in Israel being required to give regular tributary payments thereafter to the foreign monarch.

Extrabiblical inscriptions concur with the biblical picture of Israelite kings paying tribute to foreign monarchs. Assyrian inscriptions list many Israelite/Judahite kings (Jehu, Ahaz, Men-a-hem, Hoshea, Hezekiah, and Manasseh) as having brought tribute to Assyria at one time or another during their reigns. Such tributary practices continued under the hegemony of the Babylonians and the Persians (cf. Ezra 4:13, 20; Neh. 5:4).

A musical instrument that was played in the Babylonian court (Dan. 3:5, 7, 10, 15 [NIV: “lyre”; KJV: “sackbut”]). Its exact nature is unknown. Some believe it was a seven-stringed harp with a rich, dark tone; others, that it was a triangular, four-stringed harp that had a high and harsh tone. The underlying Aramaic word is sabbekha’. See also Sackbut.

The biblical writers proclaim that only one God exists, yet they also refer to three persons as “God.” The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all God. Furthermore, these three persons relate to one another as self-conscious individuals. Jesus prays to the Father (John 17). The Father speaks from heaven concerning the Son (Matt. 3:17; Luke 3:22). Jesus vows to send the Spirit as “Advocate” after his ascension, and he will do what Jesus himself did while he was among us (John 16:7–8). The challenge of Christian theology, therefore, is to formulate a doctrine of God that captures all these elements, each of which surfaces in both Testaments.

Old Testament

In the OT, evidence for the Trinity appears mostly at the implicit level. Yahweh is called “Father” in Isaiah (63:16; 64:8), Jeremiah (3:4, 19; 31:9), and Malachi (2:10). Isaiah declares, “But you are our Father, though Abraham does not know us or Israel acknowledge us; you, Lord, are our Father, our Redeemer from of old is your name” (Isa. 63:16). Yahweh identifies himself as “Father” implicitly when he claims Israel as his “son” (Hos. 11:1), and the same principle applies to Ps. 2:7, where God declares to his anointed, “You are my son; today I have become your father.” These cases do not compare in numbers with the NT evidence, but a person thought of as “God the Father” certainly appears in the OT.

Messianic texts of the OT introduce us to God the Son. In Isa. 9:6 a “child is born” who will be called “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” The day of “Immanuel,” or “God with us,” is foreshadowed in Isa. 7:14 (cf. Matt. 1:22), while Isa. 40:3–5 anticipates the appearance of the Lord “in the wilderness” (cf. Matt. 3:3). Daniel sees “one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven” being given “authority, glory and sovereign power” (Dan. 7:13–14). In Ps. 110:1 Yahweh says to David’s “Lord,” “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”

Similarly, the OT seems to distinguish the Spirit of God from Yahweh while implying the Spirit’s own personality. Genesis 1:2 makes that case, as does Exod. 31:3, where Yahweh fills Bezalel with the “Spirit of God” (cf. Exod. 35:31; Num. 11:29). In 1 Sam. 16:14 a contrast is made between the “Spirit of the Lord” that leaves Saul and an “evil spirit from the Lord” that torments him; also we find a repentant David pleading that God would not take away his “Holy Spirit” (Ps. 51:11). The Spirit can be put on persons by God, with the result that they prophesy (Isa. 61:1; Joel 2:28–29) and do what pleases him (Ezek. 36:26–27). In the OT, therefore, we see two persons (the Son and the Holy Spirit) who are both God and also distinguishable from one to whom they answer and by whom they are sent.

New Testament

The NT contains abundant evidence for “God the Father,” often because of Jesus’ teaching. The “Father” appears several times in the Sermon on the Mount (e.g., Matt. 5:16; 6:6–9, 14, 18, 26, 32; 7:11). Matthew 7:21 stands out because of Jesus’ reference to “my Father who is in heaven,” by which he identifies himself as the Son (see also Matt. 15:13; 16:17; 18:10; and Luke 24:49). Paul’s greetings normally come from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, as seen in Rom. 1:7: “Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ” (also 1 Cor. 1:3; 2 Cor. 1:2; Gal. 1:1–3; 1 Tim. 1:2; 2 Tim. 1:2). Paul introduces the Father and the Son in 1 Cor. 8:6: “For us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live” (see also 1 Cor. 15:24; 2 Cor. 11:31; Eph. 1:3; Phil. 2:22). Other significant texts include Heb. 1:5; 1 Pet. 1:2–3; in the latter, the scattered believers are those “who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood. . . . Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!” The NT evidence for “God the Father” is clear.

Biblical texts that point to the deity of Christ supply evidence for the second claim: the Son is God. Some of the texts listed above say as much, but one can take this case further. In context, John’s prologue refers to Jesus as the “Word” and proclaims that he was “with God” and “was God” (John 1:1). Jesus also relates to the Father in ways that imply his own deity, as he declares in John 10:30, “I and the Father are one.” After significant doubting, Thomas confesses the deity of Christ in John 20:28: “My Lord and my God!” NT passages that identify Jesus as the “Son of God” point to his deity, as Peter does in Matt. 16:16: “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Even demons identify Jesus as the Son. They call out, “What do you want with us, Son of God? . . . Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?” (Matt. 8:29; cf. Mark 5:7). The so-called Christ Hymn of Phil. 2:6–11 puts Jesus on the level with God, saying that he did not consider “equality with God something to be used to his own advantage.” The author of Hebrews declares that Jesus is “the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being” (1:3). Colossians 1:15–16 says that Jesus is the “image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation” and the one by whom “all things were created,” and Col. 1:19 states that “God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him.” According to Titus 2:13, Jesus is “our great God and Savior.” The entire sequence of Rev. 4–5 highlights the deity of Christ, culminating in the praise “To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!” as both the Enthroned One and the Lamb are worshiped as God (5:13–14).

The NT writers underscore both the deity and the distinctive personality of the Holy Spirit. Jesus is conceived in Mary’s womb by the Spirit’s power (Matt. 1:18–20), and when Jesus is baptized, the Spirit descends upon him as a dove (Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:10). Jesus drives out demons by the Spirit, and one dare not speak against the Spirit when he does so (Matt. 12:28–32). Luke’s Gospel puts added emphasis on the ministry of the Spirit, as we also see in Acts. He empowers various people to praise and prophesy (Luke 1:41, 67) and to be witnesses for Christ (Acts 1:8; 2:4, 17–18, 38). Sinners can lie to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3, 9), and the Holy Spirit bears witness along with the apostles to the risen Christ (5:32). In John’s Gospel, the Spirit becomes the counselor and teacher of the disciples, reminding them of their Lord’s instructions (John 14:26; 16:13). The Spirit brings assurance of sonship (Rom. 8:16) and helps disciples when they pray (8:26). This person even knows the very thoughts of God (1 Cor. 2:11). Accordingly, the Great Commission requires baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19). All three members of the Trinity have a part in the advancement of the kingdom, the Spirit no less than the Father and the Son.

Relationships between Father, Son, and Spirit

The evidence considered thus far demonstrates that three persons are called “God” in Scripture: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But the Scriptures also point to a chain of command in their relationship to one another. The Son obeys the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son to apply the work of the cross to the church. This “functional subordination” of the Son to the Father, some might argue, would follow simply from the analogy chosen by God to reveal himself to us. The “Son” would obey his “Father,” not vice versa, though they share a common dignity as God, just as a human father and son share a common humanity. But the NT writers expressly tell us that they relate to each other in this way. In Matt. 11:27 (cf. Luke 10:22) Jesus announces, “All things have been committed to me by my Father” (cf. John 3:35; 5:22). The latter transfers authority to the former as his subordinate. The Father even (for a season) knows more than the Son regarding the last days: “About that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” (Matt. 24:36), though he also dignifies the Son: “For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does” (John 5:20). The Son’s commitment to please his heavenly Father is a prominent theme of the NT, as Jesus declares in John 5:19: “The Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.” No text brings out this dependence of the Son upon the Father more clearly than Heb. 5:7–8, where the Son is said to have “offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered.” It is debated by theologians whether this functional subordination relates only to the period of the Son’s earthly ministry, or whether it is an eternal subordination.

The Spirit, though equal in personality and dignity with the Father and the Son, proceeds from them to apply the work of the cross and empower the church for ministry. In John 14:26 Jesus says, “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.” In John 15:26 Jesus announces that he also sends the Spirit out: “When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me.” The Spirit only conveys what he has received: “He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come” (John 16:13). The same “chain of command” appears in John 16:15, where Jesus says, “All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.”

Trinitarian Heresies

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are God, while being distinguishable persons. The Son obeys the Father; and these two persons of the Trinity send out the Holy Spirit to implement our deliverance from sin. A defensible explanation of the Trinity will respect all these dynamics, taking special care not to illustrate them with misleading images or simply lapse into various forms of polytheism. One of the earliest heresies of the church came from Marcion, a second-century theologian who distinguished the Father of Jesus from the supposedly vindictive God of the OT, which leaves us with more than one God. Later came the heresies of modalism and subordinationism (or Arianism). Modalists claimed that the persons of the Trinity are no more than guises worn by the one person of God. One minute God is the Father, the next he is the Son or the Holy Spirit. Subordinationists such as Arius (died AD 336) went beyond the functionality of the NT’s chain of command, arguing that the Son and the Holy Spirit are not themselves God but are essentially subordinate to him. Jehovah’s Witnesses have fallen into this latter error, suggesting that Jesus is “a god” but not the Creator God.

These early heresies pressed the church to refine its understanding of the Trinity. In his response to Marcion’s error, Tertullian coined precise language to describe the persons of the Godhead, so that God’s “threeness” and “oneness” are preserved. He used the Latin term trinitas to describe the Christian God and argued that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit share the same “substance.” The Son (also, then, the Holy Spirit) is not simply of “like substance” (Gk. homoiousios) with God the Father, but rather is “consubstantial” (Gk. homoousios) with him: the Son is God, and so is the Holy Spirit. The Nicene Creed of AD 325 incorporated this explanation and, in so doing, also set aside the idea that either the Son or the Holy Spirit was created by God, as the Arian heresy requires. Nicaea also rejected adoptionism, which regards Jesus as a man whom God promoted by endowing him with supernatural powers.

Each of these heresies—plus, say, the strict monotheism of Islam—attempts to relieve the tension seen among the claims that constitute the Trinity; however, orthodox Christians will remember that tensions and paradoxes are not automatic contradictions. No philosopher or theologian has ever expressly demonstrated that the Trinity entails logical nonsense, and Christianity’s detractors carry the burden of proof in this case. It is one thing to allege that an idea is contradictory, and quite another thing to show with an argument that it is so. On the positive side, the Trinity must remain a central doctrine of the church because it affects all the others, especially the entire work of redemption. If God is not triune, then Jesus is not God; and if he is not God, then he cannot save us, nor can we worship him as our Lord. The sacrifice that he offers for our sin would not, in that case, be supremely valuable. Consider also the application to us of what Christ has done. If the Holy Spirit is not God, then he cannot speak for God as one who knows perfectly his thoughts and gives us the word of God, our Bible. Scripture indicates that God is triune, and sinners need him to be so.

In Ezra 4:9 the KJV transliteration of the Aramaic term tarpelaye’ in the list of officials who sent a letter against Jerusalem to Artaxerxes. Some modern versions translate the word as “officials” (e.g., ESV, NRSV; NIV: “administrators”), while others describe them as people from Tripolis (e.g., HCSB, MSG).

The occasion on which Jesus entered Jersualem during a Passover celebration shortly before his arrest and crucifixion (Matt. 21:1–11; Mark 11:1–11; Luke 19:28–40; John 12:12–19). Each of the four evangelists emphasizes different aspects of this event. The three Synoptic Gospels include two parts to the story: Jesus sends two disciples to acquire a colt, and he rides the colt into Jerusalem while receiving accolades from onlookers. Luke also adds the brief detail of a complaint from certain Pharisees and Jesus’ reply to them (Luke 19:39–40). The Gospel of John, however, differs from these accounts by not including the story of Jesus sending his disciples for the colt. There are other differences among the four as well. For example, Matthew indicates that the disciples were to acquire two animals, while the other Gospels make mention of only one (Matt. 21:2; Mark 11:2; Luke 19:30; John 12:14). Such differences need not lead to undue skepticism surrounding the historicity of the event, as it is likely that each writer focused on different features.

The mode of Jesus’ arrival in Jerusalem represented a deeply symbolic action meant to evoke images of a messianic or kingly figure for Israel. Jesus, by entering in the manner in which he did, was providing a messianic demonstration; he was, in effect, claiming to be Israel’s long-awaited Messiah. Zechariah 9:9–17 is an important OT passage that functions as background to this issue. This prophetic text speaks of Israel’s king coming to his people “lowly and riding on a donkey” (9:9). This connotation would have been foremost in the minds of those present during the entry of Jesus into the royal city who were proclaiming their loyalty to him. Jesus was acting out and thereby fulfilling the prophetic promises of Zechariah, for which the people of Israel had long waited. The words of Ps. 118:26 are echoed in the cries of the jubilant crowd that hailed Jesus as the arriving Messiah of Israel, as their reference to Jesus as “Son of David” reflects an understanding of him as a messianic figure (Matt. 21:9; Mark 11:9–10; Luke 19:38; John 12:13). In all four Gospels the triumphal entry of Jesus into the holy city of Jerusalem reinforces the image of him as the Messiah.

The primary seaport of the northwestern region of the province of Asia during the NT era, it was located on the Aegean Sea in what is modern-day Turkey. Founded in the fourth century BC, it was named “Alexandria Troas” in honor of Alexander the Great. Paul’s vision of a man from Macedonia pleading for Paul to visit his area took place here, prompting the apostle to depart Troas for the region (Acts 16:8–11). In 2 Cor. 2:12–13 Paul refers to this time spent in Troas. A few years later Paul again was in the city, during which time he restored Eutychus after a fall from the third floor of a building (Acts 20:5–12). In 2 Tim. 4:13 Paul asks Timothy to “bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas.”

A settlement (modern Santa Maria) on the like-named peninsula of Asia Minor that extends westward toward the island of Samos. The Western text of Acts 20:15 suggests that, at the end of his third missionary campaign, Paul’s ship stopped at Trogyllium before continuing to Miletus.

Trophimus is mentioned three times in the NT as an associate of Paul (Acts 20:4; 21:29; 2 Tim. 4:20). In Acts, Luke identifies him as a Gentile Christian from Ephesus who accompanied Paul in delivering the collection to Jerusalem. Paul was falsely accused of bringing a Gentile into the temple because he had been seen with Trophimus in Jerusalem. In 2 Tim. 4:20 Paul says that he left Trophimus sick in Miletus. Since Paul did not pass by Miletus on the way to his Roman imprisonment, this must either be another Trophimus or evidence for a second Roman imprisonment.

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

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

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

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

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

 

The spectrum of meaning of “faith” and “faithfulness” may be applied both to God and to human beings. Cognates of “faith” are used interpersonally in human relationships but are used in the Bible specifically to denote the interaction between God and humanity, and human response to God. A question of theological pertinence is the degree to which one must distinguish between faith as an agent of personal belief and faith as an object of personal belief as pertaining to the relationship between God and human being.

In Hebrew the words most often translated “faith” or “faithful” are ’emunah and ’emet. In Greek the word rendered most frequently “faith” or “faithful” is pistis. In terms of their semantic domains, ’emunah and ’emet connote an objective sense of reliability (of persons) and stability (of inanimate objects); pistis conveys more of a subjective sense of placing confidence in a person, trusting in a person, or believing in a person or set of propositions. This subjective sense of pistis is correlated to considering the person or object of trust, belief, or confidence as reliable—“faithful.” Pistis likewise is used to communicate the quality of this person or belief as “committed” and “trustworthy.”

As noted, to some degree the meanings of the Hebrew and Greek terms overlap. However, certain dissimilarities are apparent as well. These observations play out in OT and NT expressions of faith. Martin Buber (1878–1965), a Jewish philosopher known for his academic work in the area of “faith,” distinguished between two types of faith: OT/Judaic faith, typified as tribal, national, and communal trust and fidelity based on the covenant; and NT/Christian faith, characterized as individual persuasion or belief in something.

Old Testament

Faith in the context of the OT rests on a foundation that the person or object of trust, belief, or confidence is reliable. Trust in Yahweh is expressed through loyalty and obedience. The theme of responsive obedience is emphasized in the Torah (Exod. 19:5). In the later history of Israel, faithfulness to the law became the predominant expression of faith (Dan. 1:8; 6:10). OT faith, then, is a moral response rather than abstract intellect or emotion.

Faithfulness as an attribute of God. Yahweh is presented in the OT as faithful to his promises, as faithfulness is a part of his very being. In the Torah the Israelites are reminded, “The Lord your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments” (Deut. 7:9). Not only is God presented as keeping his covenant, but also the prophet Hosea calls God “the faithful Holy One” (Hos. 11:12). Isaiah likewise pre-sents faithfulness as an attribute of God (Isa. 49:7). The people can rest assured, for God is unchanging and reliable.

The psalmist speaks of Yahweh as the faithful God: “You have redeemed me, O Lord, faithful God” (Ps. 31:5 NRSV); “he remains faithful forever” (Ps. 146:6). The translation “faithful” is warranted in these instances in the psalms. Its connotations are “truth” and “trustworthiness.” Yahweh is ascribed divine honor by his people recognizing and acknowledging his faithfulness and trustworthiness, and by responding to it in obedience as the people of God.

The faith of Abraham. Abraham’s (Abram’s) faith is used in the Bible as an example (Rom. 4:12; Gal. 3:6–9) in the sense that Abraham trusted God’s faithfulness in a way unequaled by other characters in the OT. Abraham lived in Mesopotamia when God spoke to him in a vision and told him that his descendants would be as innumerable as the stars in the sky (Gen. 15:1–5). Abraham trusted that God would be faithful to keep his promise despite insurmountable obstacles. This trust was credited to Abraham as righteousness (15:6). God subsequently initiated a covenant with Abraham (15:7–21).

Abraham’s life was characterized by his obedience to God and by his considering God to be faithful, something well noted by the early church (Heb. 11:8–11, 17–19) and used as an example of faith in the Christian walk (12:1). The three best-known examples of Abraham’s obedience and hence trust in God’s faithfulness are found consecutively in the departure from his homeland, the birth of his son Isaac, and the offering of Isaac as a sacrifice.

When God said to Abraham, “Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you” (Gen. 12:1), Abraham went as commanded (12:4). He obeyed despite his cultural disposition toward staying in the area of his ancestry and kin, and he went without knowledge of an appointed destination. Elderly and childless (12:7, 11–12), Abraham considered offspring to be impossible. However, Abraham trusted that God would be able to raise offspring for him, believing that he would become a great nation (12:2). His offspring Isaac was later reminded of the obedience of Abraham (26:5). Abraham’s greatest challenge of trust in God’s faithful provision came when he was commanded to offer his son Isaac as a burnt offering (22:2). He was commended for fearing God without reservation (22:12).

When the priest and initial leader of the Maccabean revolt, Mattathias, gave his farewell speech to his sons as he faced death in 166 BC, he placed his deeds along the lines of biblical heroes of faith such as Abraham. With likely reference to Abraham offering Isaac, he said, “Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness?” (1 Macc. 2:52 NRSV). The early church likewise used this test in Abraham’s life as an example of his faithfulness, while at the same time claiming that the source for this faithfulness was found in faith—faith in God’s faithful provision (Heb. 11:17).

Faithfulness to the covenant. Faithfulness embodies the very core of the covenant relationship. God seeks a love relationship with humanity expressed in initiating his covenant. He is described as “abounding in love and faithfulness” (Exod. 34:6). His covenant love (Heb. khesed) is closely correlated to his faithfulness: “He is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love” (Deut. 7:9). Throughout the OT, Yahweh is shown as loyal to his covenant. Yahweh’s righteousness is seen in his faithfulness in keeping the covenant even when his people were disloyal and did not acknowledge his faithfulness. He delivered his people out of Egypt because of his covenant love and righteousness, as the psalmist declared: “But from everlasting to everlasting the Lord’s love is with those who fear him, and his righteousness with their children’s children—with those who keep his covenant and remember to obey his precepts” (Ps. 103:17–18). He delivered them out of their subsequent exile, declaring them righteous because their repentant hearts trusted in his faithfulness and sought to obey his covenant. Yahweh said, “If I have not made my covenant with day and night and established the laws of heaven and earth, then I will reject the descendants of Jacob and David my servant and will not choose one of his sons to rule over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. For I will restore their fortunes and have compassion on them” (Jer. 33:25–26).

God’s people, however, were expected to reciprocate and trust his faithfulness (1 Chron. 16:15–16). When God met with Moses on Mount Sinai, he instructed Moses to tell the Israelites to obey the commands fully and to keep the covenant. It was only then that they would be a treasured possession, a holy nation (Exod. 19:5–6). The Israelites were expected to follow in obedience and thus reciprocate God’s faithfulness. The people of Israel often failed, but David and other godly people chose to be faithful to God and walk in his truth (Ps. 119:30; Heb. 11:4–38).

Faith counted as righteousness. Whereas faith is used throughout the OT in reference to God’s faithfulness and loyalty, it is used in Hab. 2:4 as pertaining to the faith of the righteous: “But the righteous will live by his faith” (NASB). In Rom. 1:17 Paul specifies, “For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: ‘The righteous will live by faith.’ ” He notes that God’s righteousness, even as revealed within OT promises, is by faith (“faith to faith,” or “faith, through and through”). By the parameters “from faith to faith,” Paul intends to exclude works of righteousness, a theme that he carries consistently in the first four chapters of Romans. Justification, for Habakkuk’s hearers, meant faithfulness, a single-minded focus on Yahweh to meet life’s essential needs. For Paul, salvation by way of justification meant that reliance upon Christ alone was foundational. In Pauline theology, faith is a thread connecting the old covenant with the new covenant.

New Testament

Faith is a central theological concept in the NT. In relational terms, faith is foremost personalized as the locus of trust and belief in the person of Jesus Christ.

In the Gospels, Jesus is spoken of not as the subject of faith (as believing in God), but as the object of faith. In the Synoptic Gospels, faith is seen most often in connection with the ministry of Jesus. Miracles, in particular healings, are presented as taking place in response to the faith of the one in need of healing or the requester. In the Gospel of John, faith (belief) is presented as something that God requires of his people (6:28–29).

In the book of Acts, “faith/belief” is used to refer to Jews and Gentiles converting to following the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and becoming part of the Christian community. The book correlates faith in Christ closely with repentance (Acts 11:21; 19:18; 20:21; 26:18).

Paul relates faith to righteousness and justification (Rom. 3:22; 5:11; Gal. 3:6). In Ephesians faith is shown as instrumental in salvation: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8).

In Hebrews, faith is described as “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see” (11:1). Faith thus is viewed as something that can be accomplished in the life of the believer—a calling of God not yet tangible or seen. To possess faith is to be loyal to God and to the gospel of Jesus Christ despite all obstacles. In the letter of James, genuine works naturally accompany genuine faith. Works, however, are expressed in doing the will of God. The will of God means, for example, caring for the poor (James 2:15–16).

In 1 Peter, Christ is depicted as the broker of faith in God (1 Pet. 1:21), whereas in 2 Peter and Jude faith is presented as received from God (2 Pet. 1:1). In the letters of John “to believe” is used as a litmus test for those who possess eternal life: “You who believe in the name of the Son of God, . . . you have eternal life” (1 John 5:13).

Faith is rarely addressed in the book of Revelation. Rather, faithfulness is the objective. Christ is described as the faithful and true witness (Rev. 1:5; 3:14), the perfect example for believers. One of the believers in Asia Minor, Antipas, is identified as Christ’s witness and faithful one (2:13). Those believers who, like Antipas, are faithful unto death, are called “overcomers” (2:10, 26). The faithless are thrown into the lake of fire, which represents the second death (21:8).

Faith and salvation. The role of faith in salvation is often hotly debated. Views are polarized between Christ as the object of faith and as the subject of faith. These views are designated as an objective genitive (faith in Christ), also known as an anthropological view, and a subjective genitive (the faithfulness of Christ), also known as a christological view. Thus, for example, Rom. 3:22 can be translated as “This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe” (cf. NRSV) or as “This righteousness from God comes through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe” (cf. NET). In the latter translation the faithfulness of Christ is seen as the agent of salvation.

In Eph. 2:8 the phrase “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith,” points to faith as instrumental in salvation. However, the source of that faith is not made clear. Does God provide the faith required to be saved, and thus the event is out of the hands of humanity? Or does salvation require a response from human beings in the form of faith—that is, trust?

In the Letter to the Romans, Paul indicates a correlation between grace and faith (Rom. 4:16; 5:1–2), and he shows that Abraham’s faith, his belief and unwavering hope in God’s faithfulness, was credited to him as righteousness (4:18–22). In the new covenant this righteousness likewise is credited to those who believe in God (4:23–24).

Faith and works. In Eph. 2:8–10 works are described as an outflow of the faith of believers: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.”

Faith and works are also related in the letter of James, where works appear to be a prerequisite of faith, for faith without works is dead (2:26). While at first sight this might appear to contradict a Pauline understanding of faith and works (Rom. 3:19–5:1; Gal. 2:15–3:24), James and Paul use the word “works” differently. Paul uses it in terms of “obedience to the law,” something obsolete as a requirement in the new covenant. James, however, writes with regard to works of charity, not works of obedience to Jewish ritualistic law. Authentic faith, then, shows the evidence of good works—charity, the fruit of the Spirit.

Faith and the Church

Whereas baptism was a public initiation rite into the first-century Christian community, it was faith in Christ Jesus that was understood as establishing one’s membership in the family of God (Gal. 3:26). This membership was available to both Jews and Gentiles. Faith, the shared belief system in and confession of Jesus’ salvific work, became the common denominator in the Christian community. In Ephesians, faith is identified as one of the unifying elements of the church (Eph. 4:5). The prayer of faith heals the sick person in the church, another unifying element of applying faith (James 5:13–15).

Faith as a spiritual gift. According to the apostle Paul, the gift of faith is closely related to the life and functioning of the church (1 Cor. 12:9). Mentioned among other gifts, or charismata (12:4), this aspect of faith is that benefit of salvation with which certain members of the church are graced and is used for the common good (12:7). This faith, then, is understood as edifying the Christian community at large rather than just the individual believer.

Faith and the Christian life. Christians are described as living by faith (2 Cor. 5:7). Not only does faith lead people to Christ, but also Christ subsequently dwells in believers’ hearts through faith (Eph. 3:17). This Christian faith is subject to testing (James 1:2).

Faith is presented by Paul as present at different levels of growth among believers. Some Christians are weak in faith (Rom. 14:1), whereas others are strong in faith (15:1). Faith can differ in its strength of conviction (4:20–22; 14:5). It is presented as something that can grow (2 Cor. 10:15).

Faith is grouped among gifts and virtues. Lifted out together with hope and love, faith is mentioned among gifts that edify believers in the church (1 Cor. 13:13). Likewise, faith is mentioned as a Christian virtue among the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22–23).

While a modern understanding of the word “truth” suggests a direct correspondence to fact or reality, Scripture presents truth in broader terms.

Old Testament. The OT not only portrays truth as an honest factual account but also places it within a relationship characterized by faithfulness and reliability. The Hebrew word translated as “truth,” ’emet, also is translated as “faithfulness,” “security,” “reliability.” The word often appears juxtaposed to words that involve a relationship, including “love” (Ps. 26:3), “kindness” (Gen. 24:27), “mercy” (Ps. 40:11), “justice” (Isa. 59:14–15), and “righteousness” (Isa. 48:1). Truth is attributed primarily not to external facts, but rather to a person or community in faithfulness.

Often described as something that belongs to God (Ps. 25:5), truth is associated with his love (26:3). Yahweh is the God of truth (31:5) and is near to all who call on him in truth (145:18). God’s truth protects (140:11) and guides (43:3). Following God means walking in his truth (26:3). God speaks the truth (Isa. 45:19) and values truth (Prov. 12:22), and he expects his people to do the same (Prov. 23:23).

Often involving speech, truth is a crucial element for justice in a community, especially in a court setting. A truthful witness gives an honest testimony and brings healing, but a false witness tells lies and brings destruction (Prov. 12:17–18). Yet only the truth will endure (12:19). Truth is needed to make sound judgments (Zech. 8:16). The absence of truth in Israel’s society is denounced by the prophets, who declare truth to have stumbled (Isa. 59:14) and even to have perished (Jer. 7:28). In Jer. 5:1 it is said that God will forgive the entire city of Jerusalem if one person is found who deals honestly and seeks the truth (cf. Gen. 18:26–32). No such person is found. Nevertheless, it is God’s vision for Jerusalem to be called the “City of Truth” (Zech. 8:3 NASB, NKJV).

Several OT narratives display how truth may not be evident in every relationship. In 1 Kings 22:16 (// 2 Chron. 18:15) King Ahab makes the prophet Micaiah repeatedly swear to be telling God’s truth because he (rightly) suspects the prophet of lying. As an Egyptian ruler, Joseph requires his brothers to prove the truth of their words (Gen. 42:16), perhaps keeping in mind the history of his ancestor Abraham’s dealings with the Egyptian king (12:10–20). Sometimes the truth of one relationship holds priority over duties involved in another relationship. For example, in Exod. 1:15–21 the Hebrew midwives have a truthful relationship with (Hebrew) babies and with God even as they lie to the king of Egypt.

New Testament. In the NT, truth signifies the gospel (Eph. 1:13) as well as Jesus himself (John 14:6). Whereas Pilate asks, “What is truth?” (John 18:38), the NT answers, “Jesus!” The topic of truth is predominant in the Gospel of John. Jesus is full of grace and truth (John 1:14), tells the truth he heard from God (8:44), and in fact is the truth (5:33). Truth involves action. Whoever lives by the truth comes out of darkness into the light (3:21). Worship of God must be done in spirit and in truth (4:23–24). It is the truth that will set people free (8:32). Jesus calls the Holy Spirit the “Spirit of truth” (15:26), whose role is to guide the followers of Jesus in all truth, speaking what he hears from the Father (John 15–16).

Although the topic of truth is seldom mentioned in the Synoptic Gospels, the phrase “I tell you the truth” is attributed to Jesus seventy-eight times (e.g., Matt. 5:18; 6:2; Mark 8:12; 9:41; Luke 9:27; 23:43; John 1:51; 13:21 NCV), showing it to be a major theme. The apostle Paul reminds the church at Corinth that love rejoices with the truth (1 Cor. 13:6). Truth describes not only knowledge of reality (Acts 24:8) but also the knowledge of Christ (2 Cor. 11:10) as well as the type of life that a follower of Christ should exhibit (Gal. 2:14; Titus 1:1). Truth can be distorted (Acts 20:30), suppressed (Rom. 1:18), and rejected (Rom. 2:8). While truth can involve speech (Eph. 4:15), those who belong to the truth show it by their love (1 John 1:6; 3:18–20).

Two women whom Paul asks the Romans to greet on his behalf, noting their hard work in the Lord (Rom. 16:12 [NRSV, ESV, NASB: “Tryphaena”]). Tryphena and Tryphosa are two of several female Christians named in Rom. 16, including Phoebe (v. 1), Priscilla (v. 3), Mary (v. 6), Persis (v. 12), Julia (v. 15), and possibly Junia(s) (v. 7). Both “Tryphena” and “Tryphosa” appear in Roman inscriptions related to the household of Caesar.

The fifth of the seven sons of Japheth (Gen. 10:2; 1 Chron. 1:5). Listed in the Table of Nations, he probably is the ancestor of a people in Asia Minor, perhaps Cilicia. Tubal traded slaves and bronze vessels with Tyre (Ezek. 27:13).

A descendant of Cain through Lamech and Zillah, he is attributed with the invention of metallurgy (Gen. 4:22). By his other wife, Adah, Lamech also fathered Jabal, the father of nomadism and animal husbandry, and Jubal, the father of musicians (Gen. 4:20–21).

A simple slip-on garment, knee-length or longer, with or without sleeves, and worn as an undergarment or over other clothing (Gen. 3:21; 37:3; Matt. 10:10; John 19:23).

According to 2 Kings 20:20, Hezekiah created a tunnel that brought water into the city of Jerusalem. To do this, he dammed part of the Gihon spring and channeled the water into the city (2 Chron. 32:30). Today the scholarly consensus is that the aptly named Hezekiah’s Tunnel is the same tunnel. The tunnel would have served as a way to bring water under Jerusalem’s city wall during a time of siege and ensure at least some water supply. In the NT the Pool of Siloam marked the end of the tunnel.

A headdress worn especially in the eastern Mediterranean region, made of cloth wrapped around the head. A turban could be worn by men (Job 29:14) or by women (Isa. 3:23 [NIV: “tiara”]; Ezek. 23:15). It was a sign of mourning to remove one’s turban (Ezek. 24:17, 23). The high priest wore a unique linen turban, distinct from the headwear of other priests (Exod. 28:4–5, 36–39; 39:28; Lev. 8:9; 16:4). Attached to its front was a golden plate inscribed with “Holy to the Lord.” It was specifically described as one of the holy garments that the high priest was to wear at his ordination and on the Day of Atonement. Ezekiel prophesied that because of Israel’s profane actions, the high priest’s turban, along with the king’s crown, would be removed by the Babylonians (Ezek. 21:26).

In 2 Chron. 26:9; Neh. 3:19–20, 24–25 reference is made to the “angle” (Heb. miqtsoa’) of the Jerusalem wall (NRSV: “the Angle”; KJV: “the turning of the wall”). It refers not to a main corner of the wall but perhaps to a projection of or indentation in the wall’s course.

In Greco-Roman society, children were accompanied by a custodian (paidagōgos, lit., “pedagogue”) who was entrusted with guardianship and instruction of the youth in goodness and morality. The judgment of the paidagōgos was considered to be the norm for the youth’s actions. As such, the custodian was responsible for the social actions of the youth in public and could be punished for them when they were inappropriate. Libanius records one such incident: “Diogenes, on seeing a youth misbehaving, struck his paedagogus, adding: ‘Why do you teach such things?’ ” (Progymnasmata 3).

The term paidagōgos is translated a variety of ways in the NT: “guardian” (NIV, ESV), “custodian” (RSV), “schoolmaster” or “instructor” (KJV), “tutor” (NASB), “disciplinarian” (NRSV), and so on. The apostle Paul refers to the law as a paidagōgos (Gal. 3:24–25) and to custodians or guardians (in contrast to fathers) in Christ (1 Cor. 4:15). The law’s role in Israel’s upbringing was to provide proper protection and guidance for growing up rightly. However, this custodial role was for Jews before the time of Christ, and now that Christ has come, no one needs or is required to submit to it in order to enter, remain, or go on in the Christian life.

An Asian Christian and trusted friend of Paul, Tychicus occasionally accompanied Paul on his missionary voyages and was frequently sent by Paul to represent him and to deliver his letters to the churches (Acts 20:4; Eph. 6:21; Col. 4:7; 2 Tim. 4:12; Titus 3:12). Paul must have thought very highly of Tychicus, trusting him to minister to the churches and referring to him as “dear brother and faithful servant in the Lord” and “dear brother, a faithful minister and fellow servant in the Lord” (Eph. 6:21; Col. 4:7). Tychicus was likely with Paul while the apostle was imprisoned in Rome (Col. 4:7).

A “type” (from Gk. typos) can be defined as a biblical event, person, or institution that serves as an example or pattern for events, persons, or institutions in the later OT or in the NT. Typology is based on the assumption that there is a pattern in God’s work in the OT and in the NT that forms a promise-fulfillment relationship. In the OT there are shadows of things that will be more fully revealed in the NT. Thus, the OT flows into the NT as part of a continuous story of salvation history. What is promised in the OT is fulfilled in the NT. This can be accomplished through prophetic word or through prophetic action/event. The use of prophetic action/event to predict or foreshadow future actions/events involves typology. Typology is part of the promise-fulfillment scheme that connects the two Testaments.

A number of biblical interpreters note that three primary characteristics of types can be identified. First, there must be some notable point of resemblance or analogy between the type and its antitype. Second, there must be evidence that the type was appointed by God to represent the thing typified. Here one must avoid the two extremes of, on the one hand, saying that a type is a type only when the Scripture explicitly calls it such, and, on the other hand, of finding a type “behind every tree.” Third, a type should prefigure something in the future. Thus, antitypes in the NT must present truth more fully realized than in the OT.

Typological interpretation of the OT is different from allegorizing a text. The former restricts itself to the meaning intended by the original author, whereas the latter reads things into the OT passage (usually in connection with messianic prophecy) not initially intended. On the other hand, it should be noted that the OT authors may not always have fully comprehended the long-range fulfillment of their prophecies. Thus, for example, Ps. 22 reveals King David’s trials and tribulations that are later viewed by NT authors as applicable to the crucifixion of Christ (e.g., the quotation of Ps. 22:18 in John 19:24 regarding the soldiers casting lots for Jesus’ clothes). David probably did not envision his situation as predictive of the sufferings of the coming Christ. But the Holy Spirit did, and he allowed the Gospel authors to make the connection. Thus, typology is a special form of biblical prophecy, which Jesus seemed to use extensively. Hence, the type is found in the OT, and its antitype occurs in the NT.

More particularly, Jesus seemed to perceive himself as the antitype to all three of the aforementioned possible types. First, Jesus fulfilled in himself persons in the OT who were types. Thus, Jesus is the ultimate David, Solomon, Elijah, Elisha, Jonah, the heavenly Son of Man of Dan. 7, and the Suffering Servant of Isa. 52:13–53:12. Second, with regard to famous OT events, Jesus reenacted the new exodus and passed the test in the new wilderness wanderings (Matt. 4:1–11 pars.), and then he proclaimed a new law from the mountain, as did Moses (Matt. 5–7). Third, Jesus revised or replaced OT institutions such as the sacrificial system and the feasts of Yahweh (most notably Passover) at his death, and at his resurrection he became the new temple of God.

The NT continues Jesus’ typological interpretation of the OT, seeing in him the supreme antitype of OT symbolism. Thus, for example, Paul sees Christ as the second Adam (Rom. 5:12–21), whose church is the new Israel, the eschatological people of God (1 Cor. 10:1–13). Matthew perceives Jesus to be the new Moses (Matt. 1–10). Note the following comparisons:

Moses, the Old Testament Type vs. Jesus, Matthew’s Antitype to Moses:

Moses was born to deliver his people. Jesus was born to save his people.

Pharoah tried to kill the infant Moses. Herod tried to kill the infant Jesus.

Moses was “baptized” in the exodus. Jesus was baptized in the new “exodus.”

Moses was tempted in the wilderness. Jesus was tempted in the wildnerness.

Moses performed ten plagues. Jesus performed ten miracles.

Moses received the law on the mount. Jesus gave a new law on the mount.

Luke understands Jesus to be the new David (Luke 1:32). Hebrews asserts that Jesus has inaugurated the new covenant (chap. 8), the true priesthood (chaps. 7–8; 10), whose death is the fulfillment and replacement of the sacrificial system of the OT (chaps. 9–10). But perhaps the most extensive usage of typology in the NT occurs in Rev. 21–22 (cf. Rev. 19), where the new creation is the antitype of the old creation of Gen. 1–3 (see table 10).

Table 10. New Creation Typology in Revelation 21–22

Sinful people are scattered (Gen. 1-3). God’s people unite to sing his praises (Rev. 21-22; cf. 19:6-7).

The “marriage” of Adam and Eve takes place in the garden (Gen. 1-3). The marriage of the second Adam and his bride, the church has come (Rev. 21-22; cf. 19:7, 21:2, 9).

God is abandoned by sinful people (Gen. 1-3). God’s people (new Jerusalem, bride of Christ) are made ready for God; marriage of the Lamb. (Rev. 21-22; cf. 19:7-8, 21:2, 9-21).

Exclusion from bounty of Eden (Gen. 1-3). Invitation to marriage supper of Lamb (Rev. 21-22; cf. 19:9).

Satan introduces sin into world (Gen. 1-3). Satan and sin are judged (Rev. 21-22; cf. 19:11-21, 20:7-10).

The serpent deceives humankind (Gen. 1-3). The ancient serpent is bound “to keep him from deceiving the nations (Rev. 21-22; cf. 20:2-3).

God gives humans dominion over the earth (Gen. 1-3). God’s people will reign with him forever (Rev. 21-22; cf. 20:4, 6, 22:5).

People rebel against the true God, resulting in physical and spiritual death (Gen. 1-3). God’s people risk death to worship the true God and thus experience life (Rev. 21-22; cf. 20:4-6).

Sinful people are sent away from life (Gen. 1-3). God’s people have their names written in the book of life (Rev. 20:4-6, 15; 21:6, 27).

Death enters the world (Gen. 1-3). Death is put to death (Rev. 20:14; 21:4).

God creates the first heaven and earth, eventually cursed by sin (Gen. 1-3). God creates a new heaven and earth, where sin is nowhere to be found (Rev. 21:1)/

Water symbolizes chaos (Gen. 1-3). There is no longer any sea (Rev. 21:1).

Sin brings pain and tears (Gen. 1-3). God comforts his people and removes crying and pain (Rev. 21:4).

Sinful humanity is cursed with wandering (exile) (Gen. 1-3). God’s people are given a permanent home (Rev. 21:3).

Community is forfeited (Gen. 1-3). Genuine community is experienced (Rev. 21-22; cf. 21:3, 7).

Sinful people are banished from the presence of God (Gen. 1-3). God lives among his people (Rev. 21:3, 7, 22; 22:4).

Creation begins to grow old and die (Gen. 1-3). All things are made new (Rev. 21:5).

Water is used to destroy wicked humanity (Gen. 1-3). God quenches thirst with water from the spring of life (Rev. 21:6; 22:1).

“In the beginning, God…” (Gen. 1-3). “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end.” (Rev. 21:6).

Sinful humanity suffers a wandering exile in the land (Gen. 1-3). God gives his children an inheritance (Rev. 21:7).

Sin enters the world (Gen. 1-3). Sin is banished from God’s city (Rev. 21:8, 27; 22:15).

Sinful humanity is separated from the presence of the holy God (Gen. 1-3). God’s people experience God’s holiness (cubed city = holy of holies) (Rev. 21:15-21).

God creates light and separates it from darkness (Gen. 1-3). No more night or natural light; God himself is the source of light (Rev. 21:23; 22:5)

Languages of sinful humanity are confused (Gen. 1-3). God’s people is a multicultural people (Rev. 21:24, 26; 22:2).

Sinful people are sent away from the garden (Gen. 1-3). The new heaven/earth includes a garden (Rev. 22:2).

Sinful people are forbidden to eat from the tree of life (Gen. 1-3). God’s people may eat freely from the tree of life (Rev. 22:2, 14).

Sin results in spiritual sickness (Gen. 1-3). God heals the nations (Rev. 22:2).

Sinful people are cursed (Gen. 1-3). The curse is removed from redeemed humanity, and people become a blessing (Rev. 22:3).

Sinful people refuse to serve/obey God (Gen. 1-3). God’s people serve him (Rev. 22:3).

Sinful people are ashamed in God’s presence (Gen. 1-3). God’s people will “see his face” (Rev. 22:4).

Tyrannus is mentioned in Acts 19:9, where his name is associated with a lecture hall in which Paul held daily discussions in Ephesus after his withdrawal from the synagogue. Tyrannus may have been the owner of the building, the person who lectured there, or the person after whom the building was named. The most widely held view is that Tyrannus was a Christian or a sympathizer who owned a lecture hall made available to Paul. There is some textual evidence (the Western textual tradition) that Paul taught there from eleven a.m. to four p.m., which would have been during the midday break after Tyrannus had dismissed his students.

Two ancient city-states of the Phoenicians that have a long and well-documented history predating many of the events in the Bible. Genesis 10:15 notes that Sidon was a son of Canaan, likely hinting at the importance of this city for the Canaanites. Several times in the Bible the term “Sidon” or “Sidonians” serves as an alternate name for the Phoenicians or Canaanites and usually refers to the southern part of this northern neighbor. There was much social and political interaction between Sidon and Tyre and the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, including Solomon’s marriage to several women from Sidon (1 Kings 11:1) and the Omride dynasty’s treaties and intermarriage with the Phoenicians (16:31). For much of the tenth through seventh centuries BC, Israel and the Phoenicians were close economic allies, with Israel providing materials for trade, and the cities of Sidon and Tyre offering the transport of those goods in their famed ships. Like Israel, Sidon and Tyre suffered under the expansions of the Assyrians and the Babylonians. Both Sidon and Tyre often were recipients of the OT prophets’ ire. Tyre especially was subject to many prophetic denouncements of which Ezekiel’s is an archtype (Ezek. 26:1–28:19). Ezekiel prophesied the total destruction of the city. Both cities had special cultic centers that advocated various versions of Baal worship and attempted to propagate their religion, as demonstrated by the actions of Jezebel, the wife of King Ahab and daughter of the king of Sidon.

Tyre and Sidon continued to be significant cities under Roman rule during the NT period. Jesus went to these two locations and condemned Jewish cities by saying that even the pagan Tyre and Sidon would have repented if they had witnessed miracles he had performed around them (Matt. 11:20–23). Paul also traveled to Tyre, staying there for seven days during a missionary journey (Acts 21:3–4).

A person from Tyre, on the Lebanese Mediterranean coast (1 Chron. 22:4; 2 Chron. 2:14; Ezra 3:7; Neh. 13:16).

Two ancient city-states of the Phoenicians that have a long and well-documented history predating many of the events in the Bible. Genesis 10:15 notes that Sidon was a son of Canaan, likely hinting at the importance of this city for the Canaanites. Several times in the Bible the term “Sidon” or “Sidonians” serves as an alternate name for the Phoenicians or Canaanites and usually refers to the southern part of this northern neighbor. There was much social and political interaction between Sidon and Tyre and the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, including Solomon’s marriage to several women from Sidon (1 Kings 11:1) and the Omride dynasty’s treaties and intermarriage with the Phoenicians (16:31). For much of the tenth through seventh centuries BC, Israel and the Phoenicians were close economic allies, with Israel providing materials for trade, and the cities of Sidon and Tyre offering the transport of those goods in their famed ships. Like Israel, Sidon and Tyre suffered under the expansions of the Assyrians and the Babylonians. Both Sidon and Tyre often were recipients of the OT prophets’ ire. Tyre especially was subject to many prophetic denouncements of which Ezekiel’s is an archtype (Ezek. 26:1–28:19). Ezekiel prophesied the total destruction of the city. Both cities had special cultic centers that advocated various versions of Baal worship and attempted to propagate their religion, as demonstrated by the actions of Jezebel, the wife of King Ahab and daughter of the king of Sidon.

Tyre and Sidon continued to be significant cities under Roman rule during the NT period. Jesus went to these two locations and condemned Jewish cities by saying that even the pagan Tyre and Sidon would have repented if they had witnessed miracles he had performed around them (Matt. 11:20–23). Paul also traveled to Tyre, staying there for seven days during a missionary journey (Acts 21:3–4).