A carnivorous mammal with pointed ears and muzzle and a bushy tail (Neh. 4:3; Matt. 8:20; Luke 9:58), often viewed as an expendable pest (Judg. 15:4–5; Song 2:15). The fox came to represent a politically cunning person, as in the case of Herod Antipas (Luke 13:32).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A nesting, brooding bird, usually with brown or black feathers and a fleshy crest on its head. Jesus is responsible for the direct mention of chickens in the Bible. As the metaphorical wings of Yahweh provide protection for his people (Exod. 19:4; Deut. 32:11; Ruth 2:12; Pss. 17:8; 91:4), and as a hen gathers her chicks, so too Jesus desires the gathering of his people (Matt. 23:37; Luke 13:34).

Author

Although strictly anonymous, the first Gospel has always been known as “according to Matthew,” and no evidence exists that it ever circulated without this name. The author is traditionally the apostle Matthew, a former tax collector (9:9). Mark (2:14) and Luke (5:27) identify him as “Levi,” probably his earlier name. This may be further established by the noticeable references to money in the first Gospel: the parables of the unmerciful servant (18:23) and of the daily pay of workers (20:1), the bribe paid to the guards at the tomb to get them to lie (28:12), and Judas’s return of the thirty silver coins (27:5). These stories, unique to Matthew, relate the morality of money in an unequivocal way, indicating Matthew’s own interests from his former life.

Matthew’s Gospel appears first in almost every extant witness to the NT, and it was considered the preeminent Gospel by the early church. It is the Gospel most quoted by the early church fathers. Of the four Gospels, Matthew’s is most oriented toward a Jewish audience.

Sources

A cursory reading of the Gospels reveals that the first three, Matthew, Mark, and Luke (the Synoptic Gospels), share much of the same material. Yet each has its own collection and order of events, reflecting its own theological emphasis. This is quite to our benefit: by examining the differences between the three Gospels, not only do we see different facets of Jesus, but also we can discern and filter the idiosyncrasies of each writer. If Matthew records an event later in his Gospel, there must be a reason consistent with his purposes.

Most current research holds that Mark was written first and provided material for both Matthew and Luke. Matthew tends to smooth out the “rough” Greek of Mark; he also compresses many of the stories, and in a few places he “fixes” passages in Mark that might have seemed unclear or offensive. Material from Mark used by Matthew is generally narrative of Jesus’ life.

Matthew and Luke also contain similar material not found in Mark, the so-called Q material (“Q” is from the German Quelle, which means “source”). No Q document is extant. If it ever existed, it may represent an oral tradition. The Q material in Matthew has strong ethical content, such as the Sermon on the Mount, many of the parables, and the Olivet Discourse. Additionally, Matthew and Luke contain material unique to their own Gospels: M in Matthew, L in Luke. The M material includes the birth and infancy narratives, some of the stories surrounding Jesus’ death and resurrection, and a few of the parables.

The use of Mark (not an apostle) by the apostle Matthew is not as surprising as it may seem. Papias reported that Mark wrote the reminiscences of Peter, a member of Jesus’ inner circle and the leader of the apostolic group. Surely Matthew would have no problem using Mark’s Gospel as a starting point for his own.

Date

Dating the Gospels is difficult. If Matthew borrowed from Mark, then the date of Mark and how long it would have taken to circulate to Matthew are important in the discussion. The first convincing use of Matthew by an external author is Ignatius, early in the second century. This places Matthew in the period between the early 60s to the early 90s.

Internal evidence includes, as in most NT literature dating, Matthew’s relationship to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. If Matthew wrote after this date, we might expect to see this reflected in some passages, especially in the Olivet Discourse, Jesus’ prophecy of the Jewish war. The mention of a city being burned in retribution in 22:7 is casual enough to suggest that Matthew did not know of this happening to Jerusalem. There also are many references to the temple that might have merited a mention of its subsequent loss.

The mention of the temple tax in 17:24 is important. Before AD 70, paying the tax supported the Jewish temple and showed solidarity with Israel. After AD 70, the revenue was diverted to the temple of Jupiter in Rome. Jews were required to continue paying under duress and considered it support of idolatry. Had this been Matthew’s world, he likely would have explained this critical point to his readers.

Arguments for a late date include references to the church (Matthew alone among the Gospel writers uses the term ekklēsia), possibly indicating an interest in church order that developed later; historical tensions between the church and the Jews, which only peaked in AD 85; and thoughts of a later date for Mark. For some, Matthew’s account of Jesus’ predictions of the destruction of Jerusalem is so vivid that it would have to have been written afterward. Many consider the theology of Matthew so sophisticated that it would require a later date.

External evidence includes the early church tradition that Matthew was written early, though part of this thinking is that Matthew was written first of the Synoptics. Still, an early date for Matthew seems the best, though the evidence is far from conclusive.

Structure

Matthew’s literary pointers do not necessarily align with his themes, making for a rich, complex structure that is hard to outline. The following are some of the structures that scholars have proposed.

By discourse. Matthew has five clear sections of Jesus’ discourses, set apart by a concluding phrase along the lines of “when Jesus had finished saying these things” (7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1). The five discourses alternate with related narratives of Jesus’ deeds. These discourses should not be thought of as intact, recorded sermons; they are compilations of Jesus’ teachings assembled by Matthew. The parallels in the other Gospels of this material differ: some of it is together as Matthew has it, but much of it is scattered in the other accounts. Matthew organized his material into types of stories and types of ministry by Jesus. Early on, Jesus is the ethical teacher; later, he is the stern lecturer warning Israel of impending judgment.

By story line. Another proposed structure concerns the story line of the Gospel. Matthew twice uses the concluding phrase “from that time on Jesus began to . . .” (4:17; 16:21). But these two instances, particularly 16:21, are in the middle of the narrative line and cannot be thought of as major literary structural markers. It is likely that Matthew uses this phrase to notify his readers of a new phase of the story, and possibly of a new approach in ministry by Jesus.

By geography. This concept revolves around the geography and movement of Jesus from his birth, through the ministry in Galilee, around Galilee, and to Jerusalem.

Outline

The following outline offers a thematic organization of Matthew’s Gospel:

I. The Miraculous Beginnings of Jesus (1:1–4:11)

II. Ethical Teachings and Miracles (4:12–10:42)

III. Confrontation and Reactions (11:1–16:20)

IV. The Messiah Must Suffer (16:21–20:28)

V. Jesus Claims Authority and Receives Praise (20:29–25:46)

VI. The Death of Jesus (26:1–27:66)

VII. The Resurrection of Jesus (28:1–28:20)

I. The miraculous beginnings of Jesus (1:1–4:11). Jesus’ genealogy and childhood show him to be the fulfillment of OT prophecy. His baptism demonstrates this fulfillment; his forty days of testing in the desert identify him with Israel.

II. Ethical teachings and miracles (4:12–10:42). This section begins with a geographical change, as Jesus returns to Galilee. Having instructed his disciples, he sends them out as an extension of his own mission.

III. Confrontation and reactions (11:1–16:20). This section also involves a change of geography. Jesus first is questioned by John’s disciples, then by the Pharisees, and finally by the people in his own town. The questions are resolved by Peter’s confession.

IV. The messiah must suffer (16:21–20:28). This is the third section that begins “from that time on Jesus began to. . . .” Jesus explains to his disciples that he will die at the hands of the Jews but be raised on the third day. This section includes the transfiguration and many parables concerning judgment and reward. The climax is at the end, when Jesus declares that he has come “to give his life as a ransom for many.”

V. Jesus claims authority and receives praise (20:29–25:46). Another geographical shift occurs, as Jesus and his disciples leave Jericho. Jesus acknowledges the title “Lord, Son of David,” cleanses the temple, and argues with the Pharisees about the source of his authority. The parables concern sonship and responses to authority. The Pharisees try to entrap Jesus. Jesus teaches about authority, then rebukes the Pharisees. Chapter 24 describes the consequences of the ultimate rejection of authority. The climax is the parable of the sheep and the goats.

VI. The death of Jesus (26:1–27:66). Matthew’s Gospel has built-in intensity up to the passion narrative. This section builds again within itself, from the anointing of Jesus in Bethany to the hush as the tomb is closed and sealed.

VII. The resurrection of Jesus (28:1–28:20). The accounts of the resurrection and postresurrection appearances are brief but significant and contain several details not found in the other Synoptics.

The Unique Contributions of Matthew

Among the unique contributions of Matthew are his genealogy of Jesus (which differs significantly from Luke’s); the birth/infancy narrative of 1:18–2:23, which includes the rec-ord of the angel appearing to Joseph, the magi from the East, the slaughter of the innocents, and the flight to Egypt; the Great Commission, where Jesus commands his followers to “go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (28:19); and the Sermon on the Mount (chaps. 5–7), the largest block of the teachings of Jesus in the NT (Matthew contains large blocks of Jesus’ teaching in the other discourses as well).

Use of the Old Testament

Matthew’s use of the OT is remarkable. Matthew is concerned with showing Jesus as the fulfillment of the OT and God’s salvation history. This can be seen in the so-called fulfillment quotations (1:22–23; 2:15, 17–18, 23; 4:14–16; 8:17; 12:17–21; 13:35; 21:4–5; 27:9–10; see also 2:5–6; 13:14; 26:54, 56, and 3:3; 22:31–32) as well as in the narrative portions of the book, particularly in the sweeping statement of 26:56: “This has all taken place that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled.”

Matthew immediately appeals to the OT in recounting the genealogy of Jesus. He divides the history of Israel into three eras: the first culminates in David, the second with the exile—clearly two of the most significant turning points in Israel’s history—the third in Jesus, the Christ.

The quote “Out of Egypt I called my son” (2:15), from Hos. 11:1, is an excellent example of Matthew’s commitment to fulfillment. The passage in Hosea clearly is not looking forward to this verse, but Matthew employs this short sentence to identify Jesus as the fulfillment of Israel and uses the return from Egypt of the holy family to illustrate the parallels in Jesus’ life with the experience of the Jews. Matthew’s use of the OT here, and in general, follows ancient, particularly Jewish, interpretive conventions.

Matthew contains a number of OT quotations not found in the other Synoptics. These appear generally as asides from Matthew himself—his own reflections, as it were, not the words of Jesus. Matthew clearly sees the relationship between Jesus and the OT in both directions: Jesus is the total fulfillment of the OT, and the OT is deeply concerned with pointing the way to Jesus.

Matthew then applies OT passages to the life of Jesus: Jesus is the virgin’s son in Isa. 7:14 (Matt. 1:22–23), the one coming from Bethlehem to rule over Israel in Mic. 5:2 (Matt. 2:5–6), and the son called out of Egypt in Hos. 11:1 (Matt. 2:15); the slaughter of infants reflects the fall of Judah seen in Jer. 31:15 (Matt. 2:17–18); and Jesus is the great light on Zebulun and Naphtali of Isa. 9:1–2 (Matt. 4:13–16).

Jesus’ Relationship to Jewish Leaders

Matthew’s Gospel is almost universally negative toward the religious leaders, even where parallel passages do not reflect this antagonism (compare Matt. 23:37 with Luke 13:31). Matthew records many groups of leaders: teachers of the law (scribes), Pharisees, Sadducees, chief priests, and elders; he often combines terms, “scribes and Pharisees” being his favorite combination. Matthew portrays the Pharisees as the most hostile to Jesus, identifying them as a “brood of vipers” (3:7).

Yet, the Gospel of Matthew is far from being an anti-Jewish work. Jesus is the fulfillment of the OT; he was sent “only to the lost sheep of Israel” (15:24); people praise the God of Israel for his healing demonstrations. Matthew’s point is that it is Israel’s leaders and those who reject their Messiah who are bringing judgment upon themselves.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Old Testament

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

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

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

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

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

New Testament

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

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

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

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

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

Old Testament

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

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

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

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

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

New Testament

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

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

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

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

One of the prophets and teachers in the church at Antioch. His name is a Greek rendering of the Hebrew name “Menahem.” Manaen was “brought up with” Herod Antipas the tetrarch (Acts 13:1). It has been suggested that boys raised as companions of royal princes were so described and retained this title as adults. Since he knew Herod, Manaen may well have served as a source of information for the writing of Luke’s Gospel (cf. Luke 3:19–20; 9:7–9; 13:31; 23:7–12). An earlier Manaen was an Essene acquaintance of Herod the Great (father of Herod Antipas) who predicted Herod the Great’s rise to kingship (Josephus, Ant. 15.373–79).