Aaron was Moses’ older brother (eighty-three and eighty years old respectively, according to Exod. 7:7) and his close associate during the days when God used both of them to establish his people Israel as a nation. Aaron’s particular importance came when God selected him to be the first high priest of Israel.

Aaron first appears in the account of Moses’ divine commission at the burning bush. God charged Moses to return to Egypt and lead his people out of bondage (Exod. 3:7–10). In spite of God’s assurance of divine support and ultimate success, Moses hesitated to accept the call, finally citing his lack of rhetorical skills (“I am slow of speech and tongue” [Exod. 4:10]). Finally, God revealed that Aaron was on the way to see Moses. Aaron could “speak well” (Exod. 4:14), so he would serve as Moses’ mouthpiece.

Aaron plays a supportive role in the Exodus account of the plagues and the departure from Egypt. He was at Moses’ side. As previously arranged, Aaron was the spokesperson, acting as a prophet to Moses, who was “like God to Pharaoh” (Exod. 7:1). Indeed, the early plagues often were initiated by Moses commanding Aaron to “stretch out” his staff (Exod. 8:5, 16; cf. 7:9), though later Moses took over this role.

After much struggle, Pharaoh finally allowed the Israelites to leave Egypt. Aaron is not specifically mentioned as playing a role at the climactic moment of the crossing of the Red Sea, but he appears again in Exod. 16 during the first report of the Israelite community’s grumbling about lack of food for the journey. Moses and Aaron were the objects of the grumbling (v. 2), with Aaron continuing his role as the one who speaks for Moses (vv. 9–10). Aaron also supported Moses’ leading position during the first battle in the wilderness (Exod. 17:8–16). When the Israelites fought the aggressive Amalekites, Israel had the upper hand only when Moses kept his walking staff, representing God’s presence, raised above his head. When his arms grew too tired to hold the staff aloft, Aaron and Hur were next to him, hoisting his arms high.

The event of greatest significance involving Aaron in the wilderness was his appointment as high priest. The divine mandate for his installation is recorded in Exod. 28. Aaron and his sons were to be “set apart” or “consecrated” (Heb. root qdsh) for service to God. They were given special garments that distinctively related them to the sanctuary (i.e., the similarity between the ephod and the innermost curtain of the tabernacle [“blue, purple and scarlet yarn”; Exod. 26:1; 28:6]). Instructions for the installation service are given in Exod. 29, but the event itself is reported in Lev. 8.

Aaron did not fare well on the one occasion when he acted independently from Moses. While Moses was on Mount Sinai receiving the two tablets of the law from the hand of God, Aaron gave in to the people’s request to make a calf idol out of golden earrings that they gave him. Whether this calf idol represented a false god or the Lord (see Exod. 32:5) is irrelevant because in either case the worship was illegitimate and brought great harm on God’s people. When Moses returned, he confronted Aaron, who gave lame excuses by blaming the people. Unexpectedly, the Levites, his own tribe, assisted Moses by killing many of those who worshiped the idol. For this act, the Levites were ordained to work as priestly assistants.

In spite of Aaron’s sin, God did not remove him from his priestly responsibilities (thanks to the prayers of Moses [Deut. 9:20]), the height of which was to preside over the annual Day of Atonement. The incident of the golden calf was not the only occasion when Aaron tried God’s patience. According to Num. 12, Aaron and his sister, Miriam, contested Moses’ leadership. Using his marriage to a Cushite woman as a pretext, Moses’ siblings asserted their equality. God, however, put them in their place, affirming Moses’ primacy.

Other tribal leaders questioned Aaron’s priestly leadership, according to Num. 17. Moses told all the tribal leaders to place their walking staffs along with Aaron’s before God at the tent of testimony. God showed his favor toward Aaron by causing his staff to bud.

Both Moses and Aaron forfeited their right to enter the land of promise when they usurped the Lord’s authority as they brought water from the rock in the wilderness (Num. 20:1–13). Sick and tired of the people’s complaining, Moses wrongly ascribed the ability to make water come from the rock to himself and Aaron, and rather than speaking to the rock, he struck it twice. For this, God told them that they would die in the wilderness. Aaron’s death is reported soon after this occasion (Num. 20:22–27).

Aaron is cited infrequently in subsequent Scripture, with the exception of priestly genealogies (1 Chron. 6:3, 49–50) or in historical reviews (Pss. 77:20; 99:6; 105:26). Psalm 133:2 presents a striking image of the blessings of communal unity by asking the reader to picture oil running down Aaron’s beard. In the NT, the most significant use of Aaron is in comparison to Jesus Christ, the ultimate high priest. Interestingly, the book of Hebrews argues that Jesus far surpassed the priestly authority of Aaron by connecting his priesthood to Melchizedek, a mysterious non-Israelite priest who blesses God and Abram in Gen. 14 (see Heb. 7:1–14).

The KJV translation of certain Greek constructions referring to “flesh.” Most contemporary English versions prefer “of the flesh,” “earthly,” “worldly,” and even “sinful.” Occasionally “carnal” simply refers to physical or material things (e.g., Rom. 15:27; 1 Cor. 9:11) or to certain aspects of the OT that have been fulfilled in Christ (Heb. 7:16; 9:10). The notion occurs most frequently in the writings of Paul, who makes special use of “carnal” to contrast it with “spiritual.” In Rom. 8:1–11 Paul presents the carnal or worldly person as “Spirit-less” and therefore “Christ-less.” By definition, a Christian is spiritual and cannot be carnal (“live according to the sinful nature” [8:4]). That is, those who have Christ necessarily have the Holy Spirit, and therefore they do not follow the pattern of the world, but rather walk by the Spirit and produce spiritual fruit (Gal. 5:16–26).

In other contexts the same apostle can describe Christians as “carnal” (KJV) or “worldly” (NIV). “Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly—mere infants in Christ. . . . For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly?” (1 Cor. 3:1–3). Here Paul rebukes the Corinthian Christians for their immaturity. The Spirit has sanctified them (6:11), but in their sinful pride and divisiveness they appear to belong to the world, the evil age of sin and death. They must “grow up” so that their conduct befits the Spirit, who now dwells in them.

Although Paul’s two uses of “carnal” seem opposed to each other, he is simply calling his Corinthian readers to live consistently with the truths that he expounded in Romans. Christians are fundamentally not carnal, but spiritual. They should therefore act like it in a life marked by faith, hope, and especially love (1 Cor. 13). These are the true signs that someone has the Holy Spirit, even though the Christian may lapse into attitudes and behaviors inconsistent with this new identity in Christ.

Carnelian–A precious red stone. It is one of the jewels in the high priest’s breastpiece (Exod. 28:17; 39:10), as well as in the “covering” (similar to the high priest’s breastpiece) for the king of Tyre, who is portrayed as a priest serving in the temple garden of Eden (Ezek. 28:13 NRSV). In the book of Revelation, God, who sits on the throne, has the appearance of carnelian (4:2–3), and carnelian is one of the precious stones in the walls of the new Jerusalem (21:20).

The high priest was the leader of the Levitical clan that oversaw Israel’s sacrificial system, whether directly performing sacrifices or supervising others. As no fixed terminology was set, he could also be referred to as the anointed priest, head priest, chief priest, or simply the priest. He was considered the holiest person in Israel, his position corresponding to the most holy place in the tabernacle or temple, so that he was the only one allowed behind the veil to perform sacrifices on the Day of Atonement (see Lev. 16).

The Role of the High Priest

Israel’s first high priest was Moses’ brother, Aaron, who was chosen by God and instructed in his duty. Many of the directions that he received were binding on every high priest who followed him. In addition to taking part in offering various types of sacrifices, he was required to enter the tabernacle twice daily to burn incense and tend the lamps (Exod. 30:7–8). An added responsibility may have been to place twelve loaves of bread on the table in the tabernacle each Sabbath (Lev. 24:5–8; Ezek. 44:16). Once a year, on the Day of Atonement, the high priest entered the most holy place to sprinkle the blood of a sacrificial goat on the mercy seat of the ark of the covenant, to atone for the sins of his people.

The high priest needed to be particularly careful to maintain his holy status (Lev. 21:10–15). Like other priests, he was not allowed to touch a corpse, but he alone was forbidden to enter a house where there was a dead body. He was not permitted to become unclean after the death of his mother or father or to tear his clothes as a sign of mourning. To prevent his offspring from being defiled, he was instructed to marry only a virgin of his own people.

Like all Israelite priests, the high priest was anointed for his position. This signified that he was set aside by God and empowered for his task. The high priest was distinguished from his brothers by his special clothing (Exod. 28). In addition to the linen tunic, sash, and turban worn by all priests, the high priest normally wore a breastpiece, an ephod containing the Urim and Thummim, and a robe. The breastpiece was a pouch made of blue, purple, and scarlet yarn with thin strips of gold woven into it. Attached to the ephod by four braided gold chains, the breastpiece was set with twelve stones, each of which was engraved with the name of a tribe, so that the high priest represented all of Israel before God. The Urim and Thummim were placed in the pouch, to be used by the priest when seeking special direction from God.

The ephod, made of the same material as the breastpiece, was a sleeveless garment fastened by a belt made of the same material. Two onyx stones, each engraved with the names of six of the tribes of Israel, were set in gold filigree and attached to the shoulders of the ephod. The robe, made of blue cloth and reinforced at the neck, probably was worn under the ephod. Golden bells and pomegranates alternated around its hem, the bells ringing whenever the priest entered the holy place so that he would not die. To distinguish this turban from those worn by other priests, a golden plate or rosette was attached, engraved to proclaim that the high priest was “Holy to the Lord.”

Even though the high priest usually wore distinctive clothing, on the Day of Atonement, when he entered the most holy place, he wore only a tunic, sash, undergarments, and turban, all made of linen. Evidently, the special clothes were not appropriate when atoning for the nation’s sins.

The high priest held a hereditary office originally occupied by the eldest direct descendant of Aaron’s son Eleazar. By the time of Eli, the priesthood had evidently passed to the descendants of Ithamar. During the reign of David, both Zadok, a descendant of Eleazar, and Abiathar, a descendant of Ithamar through Eli, served as priests. After David’s death, Solomon deposed Abiathar for supporting Adonijah’s attempt to become king. From this time onward, the high priesthood remained in the hands of Zadok’s descendants, until the rise of Antiochus Epiphanes, who sold the high priesthood to the highest bidder, no matter what his genealogical connections.

The death of a high priest was of national significance, as it marked the beginning of the tenure of a new high priest, who received his father’s special clothing. It also gave anyone who had fled to one of the six cities of refuge for unintentionally killing someone the opportunity to return home (Num. 35:25–28). Later rabbis concluded that the high priest’s death in some way atoned for those who committed manslaughter.

The High Priest and Political Leaders

From the period of the first temple a close link was established between the high priest and the king. Both were anointed to serve respectively as Israel’s chief spiritual leader and political leader. Kings often exerted their authority over high priests. Thus, Solomon promoted Zadok and deposed Abiathar. Similarly, King Joash instructed Jehoiada to repair the temple. It was also possible for a high priest to oppose or endorse a ruler. Thus, Jehoiada both deposed Athaliah and crowned Joash as king (2 Kings 11). The chief priest Azariah drove Uzziah out of the temple when he attempted to burn incense on his own (2 Chron. 26:16–20). At the end of the kingdom period, when King Zedekiah was taken captive to Babylon, the high priest Seraiah, along with his chief associates, also were taken into exile, where they were executed (2 Kings 25:18–21).

After the exile, when Israel had no king, the high priests gained additional political significance. During the Hasmonean period, the offices of high priest and king were sometimes united in one person. Herod the Great, in Roman times, elevated and deposed high priests at will. After his death and his son’s removal from office, high priests were appointed by the Roman governors and functioned as the Jews’ main liaison with Roman officials.

The Priesthood and the Early Church

In the first century AD, the high priest was the chief social and religious leader among the Jews, presiding over the Sanhedrin, the Jewish council that tried cases concerning Jewish laws. The Greek word used in the NT for “high priest,” archiereus, often appears in the plural, “chief priests,” to include current or former high priests and members of the priestly aristocracy. Luke refers to Sceva, whose seven sons attempted to cast out demons in the way Paul did, as a high priest. Since no list of high priests contains Sceva’s name, he may have been simply a member of a priestly family or personally used the term to boost his religious standing (Acts 19:13–14). After the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, the office of high priest disappeared entirely.

The chief priests, in association with the Sanhedrin, scribes, and/or elders, often opposed Jesus’ ministry. The final official rejection of Jesus came when the high priest Caiaphas proclaimed that one man should die so that the nation might not perish. By this proclamation, he unwittingly “prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation” and for other children of God, thus uniting them (John 11:49–52). Caiaphas later personally interrogated Jesus about his status as the Messiah and proclaimed him guilty of blasphemy (Mark 14:60–64).

After the resurrection, high priests joined the wider priestly opposition to the apostles. Thus, the high priest was present when the decision was made to silence Peter and John for proclaiming that the crippled beggar had been healed by the power of Jesus (Acts 4:1–20). He also took part in their subsequent arrest and questioning (5:17–28). The high priest questioned Stephen over charges that he blasphemed and spoke against the temple and Mosaic law (6:11–7:1). Paul, before his experience of the risen Christ, received letters of authority from the high priest to arrest Christians (9:1–2). Paul later stood trial before the high priest Ananias, who also brought charges against him to Felix (24:1), and then was charged before Festus by a wider group of chief priests (25:1–3).

The Priesthood of Jesus in Hebrews

Although other NT books imply that Jesus had a priestly ministry, the book of Hebrews alone develops the idea that Jesus not only has the right to serve as priest but also is the great high priest who replaces the OT priesthood. It is therefore incumbent upon all to follow Christ, as there is no other way to be forgiven of sin and come into fellowship with the Father. The book shows this in a number of ways, chiefly in chapters 5–10. As a descendant of Judah, Jesus did not qualify to serve as a priest under the Aaronic order. Hebrews therefore demonstrates that his service as a priest in the order of Melchizedek far surpasses the Aaronic priesthood (5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:17). Since Melchizedek is greater than Abraham, as seen by the patriarch bringing tithes to the priest, and since Levi, as a descendant of Abraham, in effect paid tithes through his ancestor, Jesus—as a member of a greater priesthood—is greater than the Aaronic priests (7:4–10). For Jesus to serve as high priest, he had to be “like his brothers in every way” (2:17). This required that he share in their humanity by taking on flesh and blood, learning to trust God completely in life, and dying (2:14). It also meant that he would be tempted in every way humans are so that he could sympathize with them (2:18). However, since he never succumbed to temptation, he could rescue people from their sin.

Although no one chooses to become a priest, Aaron’s descendants inherited their role, whereas Jesus was designated as priest by God with an oath (Heb. 5:10; 7:21; cf. Ps. 110:4). That God did not swear that Aaron’s line would always be priests implies that a change was possible. Since Jesus received his priesthood by an oath, his priesthood is greater than the Aaronic priesthood, becomes the guarantee of the better covenant spoken of in Jer. 31, and will never be forfeited.

The OT priests presented repeated offerings, and so their work could not definitively deal with the problem of sin. The sacrifices of the Aaronic priests needed to be repeated regularly, whereas the sacrifice of Jesus did not have to be repeated. Similarly, Aaronic priests needed to offer sacrifices for their own sins before they could aid others. Since Jesus never sinned, he had no such limitation. What the priests had to do for themselves daily (Heb. 7:27), and for the nation once a year, Christ did once for all (7:27; 9:26, 28; 10:10, 12, 14, 18).

The Levitical priesthood could continue only as new priests replaced those who retired or died, but Jesus’ priesthood is eternal because of his eternal life. Melchizedek is used to illustrate how this can be. But while Melchizedek remains a priest forever simply because the Bible does not record his genealogy or his death, Jesus has a permanent priesthood because he lives forever and because of the oath quoted from Ps. 110:4: “The Lord has sworn: . . . ‘You are a priest forever’ ” (Heb. 5:6; cf. 6:20; 7:3, 17; 21).

Not only is Jesus a greater priest, but also he presented a greater sacrifice at a greater, heavenly sanctuary. The Aaronic priests served only at a copy of this true heavenly tabernacle, which was erected by God himself (Heb. 8:2). Jesus presented not the blood of animals, which needed to be offered over and over, but rather the perfect sacrifice of himself, ensuring that no other sacrifice is needed. After becoming a sacrifice, he returned to the heavenly sanctuary, where he appears forever at the right hand of God as king and mediator. Due to Christ’s work, the most holy place is no longer barred to all but the high priest once a year. Rather, the curtain has been opened so that all his people can boldly draw near to the Father. Similarly, Christ’s priestly work ensures that those who follow him can be effectively forgiven, purified, sanctified, and perfected.

Holiness is an attribute of God and of all that is fit for association with him. God alone is intrinsically holy (Rev. 15:4). God the Father is holy (John 17:11), as is the Son (Acts 3:14), while “Holy” is the characteristic designation of God’s Spirit (Ps. 51:11; Matt. 1:18). God’s name is holy (Luke 1:49), as are his arm (Ps. 98:1), ways (Ps. 77:13), and words (Ps. 105:42).

With reference to God himself, holiness may indicate something like his uniqueness, and it is associated with attributes such as his glory (Isa. 6:3), righteousness (Isa. 5:16), and jealousy—that is, his proper concern for his reputation (Josh. 24:19).

God’s dwelling place is in heaven (Ps. 20:6), and “holy” functions in some contexts as a virtual equivalent for heavenly (11:4). God’s throne is holy (47:8), and the angels who surround it are “holy ones” (89:5; cf. Mark 8:38).

A corollary of God’s holiness is that he must be treated as holy (Lev. 22:32)—that is, honored (Lev. 10:3), worshiped (Ps. 96:9), and feared (Isa. 8:13).

While “holy” is sometimes said to mean “set apart,” this does not appear to be its core meaning, though it is an associated notion (Lev. 20:26; Heb. 7:26). Holiness, as applied to people and things, is a relational concept. They are (explicitly or implicitly) holy “to the Lord” (Exod. 28:36), never “from” something.

The symbolic representation of God’s heavenly palace, the tabernacle (Exod. 40:9), and later the temple (1 Chron. 29:3), and everything associated with them, are holy and the means whereby God’s people in the OT may symbolically be brought near to God. For God to share his presence with anything or anyone else, these too must be holy (Lev. 11:44–45; Heb. 12:14).

The OT system of worship involved the distinction between unclean and clean, and between common and holy, and the means of effecting a transition to a state of cleanness or holiness (Lev. 10:10). People, places, and items may be made holy by a process of consecration or sanctification, whether simply by God’s purifying presence (Exod. 3:5) or by ritual acts (Exod. 19:10; 29:36).

Holiness may be an attribute of places marked by God’s presence (Exod. 3:5; Ps. 43:3). Likewise, particular times, especially the Sabbath day (Exod. 20:8), are declared holy.

God’s faithful people are described as holy (Exod. 19:6; 1 Pet. 2:9). In the OT, this is true of the whole people of God at one level, and of particular individuals at another. Thus, kings (Ps. 16:10), prophets (2 Kings 4:9), and in particular priests (Lev. 21:7) are declared to be holy. While the OT witnesses to some tension between the collective holiness of Israel and the particular holiness of its designated leaders (Num. 16:3), the latter were intended to act as models and facilitators of Israel’s holiness.

The prophet Zechariah envisions a time when the distinctions between holy and common will be meaningless (Zech. 14:20–21). While vestiges of the symbolic language of holiness remain in the NT (e.g., the “holy city” in Matt. 27:53), after the death and resurrection of Christ the NT no longer operates with the symbolic holiness of the OT. Rather, this language is appropriated to explain what true holiness entails in the lives of God’s people (Rom. 12:1; Eph. 2:21). All Christians are holy (“saints” [Gk. hagioi] means “holy ones” [e.g., Rom. 1:7]), including in some sense the members of a believer’s family (1 Cor. 7:14). The holiness of God’s people is both definitive, by virtue of the saving work of Christ (Heb. 13:12), and progressive, by eliciting, and empowering through his Holy Spirit, holy and righteous living (Rom. 6:19; 1 Thess. 4:7–8). Both divine initiative and human activity with regard to holiness may be seen in texts such as Lev. 20:8; Heb. 10:14. The objective of Christian discipline is that we might share God’s holiness (Heb. 12:10).

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).

A mysterious individual who is referenced twice in the OT and once in the NT. His name and description also appear within the DSS. In Gen. 14:18–20 Melchizedek is a priest of El Elyon (God Most High), possibly a reference to the Canaanite god El but here used as a title for Yahweh. He is said to be from “Salem,” which could be a shortened form of “Jerusalem.” Melchizedek brings out bread and wine to Abram, blesses him, and receives one-tenth of Abram’s spoils that Abram had acquired from his successful military campaign against the eastern kings. The royal oracle of Ps. 110 holds a declaration of the Davidic king as an eternal priest “in the order of Melchizedek” (v. 4). This phrase is later applied to Jesus by the writer of the book of Hebrews to emphasize the superiority of Jesus’ priesthood over the Levitical priesthood. In Heb. 7:1–17 Melchizedek is described as the “king of righteousness” and the “king of peace” (v. 2); he is said to have been birthed “without father or mother” and is described as one who has existed eternally, thus resembling the Son of God (v. 3). This description draws not only on Gen. 14 and Ps. 110 but also on the description of Melchizedek as a heavenly figure that appears also in the DSS (11Q13). While Melchizedek’s identity and function remain a mystery, all three biblical passages refer to him in order to proclaim the work of God.

A mysterious individual who is referenced twice in the OT and once in the NT. His name and description also appear within the DSS. In Gen. 14:18–20 Melchizedek is a priest of El Elyon (God Most High), possibly a reference to the Canaanite god El but here used as a title for Yahweh. He is said to be from “Salem,” which could be a shortened form of “Jerusalem.” Melchizedek brings out bread and wine to Abram, blesses him, and receives one-tenth of Abram’s spoils that Abram had acquired from his successful military campaign against the eastern kings. The royal oracle of Ps. 110 holds a declaration of the Davidic king as an eternal priest “in the order of Melchizedek” (v. 4). This phrase is later applied to Jesus by the writer of the book of Hebrews to emphasize the superiority of Jesus’ priesthood over the Levitical priesthood. In Heb. 7:1–17 Melchizedek is described as the “king of righteousness” and the “king of peace” (v. 2); he is said to have been birthed “without father or mother” and is described as one who has existed eternally, thus resembling the Son of God (v. 3). This description draws not only on Gen. 14 and Ps. 110 but also on the description of Melchizedek as a heavenly figure that appears also in the DSS (11Q13). While Melchizedek’s identity and function remain a mystery, all three biblical passages refer to him in order to proclaim the work of God.

A distinction needs to be made between the various occurrences of the words “pray” and “prayer” in most translations of the Bible and the modern connotation of the same words. In the OT, the main Hebrew words translated as “to pray” and “prayer” (palal and tepillah) refer to the act of bringing a petition or request before God. They do not normally, if ever, refer to the other elements that we today think of as being included in the act of praying, such as praise or thanksgiving. The same is the case in the NT, where the main Greek words translated “to pray” and “prayer” (proseuchomai and proseuchē) also specifically denote making a petition or request to God. But other words and constructions in both Testaments are also translated “to pray” and “prayer,” and this article will deal with the larger concept, including praise, thanksgiving, petition, and confession, as opposed to the narrower meaning of the particular Hebrew and Greek terms (see also Praise; Thanksgiving; Worship).

Old Testament

In the OT there is no language or understanding comparable to modern ways of talking about prayer as conversational or dialogical. Prayer does not involve mutuality. Prayer is something that humans offer to God, and the situation is never reversed; God does not pray to humans. Understanding this preserves the proper distinction between the sovereign God and the praying subject. Therefore, prayers in the OT are reverential. Some OT prayers have extended introductions, such as that found in Neh. 1:5, that seem to pile up names for God. These should be seen as instances not of stiltedness or ostentation, but rather as setting up a kind of “buffer zone” in recognition of the distance between the Creator and the creature. In the NT, compare the same phenomenon in Eph. 1:17.

Many of the prayers in the OT are explicitly set in a covenantal context. God owes nothing to his creatures, but God has sworn to be faithful to those with whom he has entered into covenant. Thus, many OT prayers specifically appeal to the covenant as a motivation for both those praying and God’s answering (1 Kings 8:23–25; Neh. 1:5–11; 9:32; Pss. 25:10–11; 44:17–26; 74:20; 89:39–49). In postexilic books such as Ezra, Nehemiah, and Daniel, an important feature in the recorded prayers is the use of prior Scripture, praying God’s words (many times covenantal) back to him (in the NT, see Acts 4:24–30). Also, the closeness engendered by the covenant relationship between God and his people was unique in the ancient Near Eastern context. So Moses can marvel, “What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the Lord our God is near us whenever we pray to him?” (Deut. 4:7).

Prayer must be made from a heart that is right toward God. There is no guarantee that God will hear every prayer (Ps. 66:18; Prov. 1:28; Isa. 1:15; 59:2). For the most part, the “rightness” that God requires in prayer is “a broken and contrite heart” (Ps. 51:17; cf. Isa. 66:2).

Although several passages talk about prayer in the context of sacrifice (e.g., Gen. 13:4), there is surprisingly little emphasis on prayer in the legal texts about sacrifice in the Pentateuch, no prescriptions for the kinds of prayer or the words that are to be said in connection with the sacrifices. Interestingly, however, in later, perhaps postexilic contexts, where there is no temple and therefore no sacrifice, we find texts such as Ps. 141:2, where the petitioner asks God to accept prayer as if it were an offering of incense and the evening sacrifice (cf. Prov. 15:8; in the NT, see Rev. 5:8).

A presupposition of prayer in the OT is that God hears prayer and may indeed answer and effect the change being requested. Prayer is not primarily about changing the psychological state or the heart of the one praying, but rather about God changing the circumstances of the one praying.

There is a striking honesty, some would even say brashness, evident in many OT prayers. Jeremiah laments that God has deceived both the people (Jer. 4:10) and Jeremiah himself (20:7) and complains about God’s justice (12:1–4). Job stands, as it were, in God’s face and demands that the Almighty answer his questions (Job 31:35–37). The psalmist accuses God of having broken his covenant promises (Ps. 89:39). While it is true that God does, to some extent, rebuke Jeremiah and Job (Jer. 12:5; Job 38–42), he does not ignore them or cast them aside. This would seem, ultimately, to encourage such honesty and boldness on the part of those who pray.

Literarily, accounts of prayers in narratives serve to provide characterizations of the ones praying. The recorded prayers of people such as Abraham, Moses, Hannah, Ezra, and Nehemiah demonstrate their true piety and humility before God. By contrast, the prayer of Jonah recorded in Jon. 2, in its narrative context, betrays a certain hypocrisy on the part of the reluctant prophet.

New Testament

The depiction of prayer in the NT is largely consistent with that of the OT, but there are important developments.

Jesus tells his disciples to address God as “Father” (Matt. 6:9; cf. Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6). Although recent scholarship has demonstrated that “Abba” is not the equivalent of our “daddy,” it expresses a certain intimacy that goes beyond what was prevalent at the time, but retains an element of reverence as well. God is not just “Father,” but “our Father in heaven” (Matt. 6:9). Even Jesus addresses God as “Holy Father” (John 17:11), “Righteous Father” (John 17:25), and “Father, Lord of heaven and earth” (Matt. 11:25). And Paul, as mentioned earlier, uses a buffer zone, rarely in his epistles using the word “Father” by itself, but instead referring to “God our Father” (e.g., Rom. 1:7) and frequently using the phrase “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 15:6; 2 Cor. 1:3; 11:31; Eph. 1:3; cf. Eph. 1:17; Col. 1:3). God is our Father, but still he is a Father before whom one reverently kneels (Eph. 3:14).

Prayer to God is now to be made in the name of Jesus (Matt. 18:19–20; John 14:13; 15:16; 16:23–26). While there is some debate as to the exact nuance of this idea, it seems clear that, at the very least, prayers in Jesus’ name need to be ones that Jesus would affirm and are in accordance with his holy character and expressed will. It is, in essence, saying to God that the prayer being offered is one that Jesus would approve.

Prayer can also be made to Jesus (John 14:14), and such devotion to him in the early church is evidence of his being regarded as deity. The instances of this in the NT are rare, however, and generally either exclamatory or rhetorical (Acts 7:59; 1 Cor. 16:22; Rev. 22:20). The norm would still seem to be that prayer is to be made to the Father, through Jesus’ name.

Unlike anything prior in the OT, Jesus tells his followers to pray for their enemies (Matt. 5:44). Jesus and his followers serve as examples (Luke 23:34; Acts 7:60).

The Holy Spirit plays a vital role in prayers. It is by him that we are able to call out, “Abba, Father” (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6). The Spirit himself intercedes for us (Rom. 8:26). Our praying is to be done in the Spirit (Eph. 6:18; Jude 20; possibly 1 Cor. 14:15).

Jesus encourages fervent and even continual or repeated prayer (Luke 18:1–8), but not showy or repetitive prayer (Matt. 6:5–8).

Jesus becomes the model of prayer. He prays before important decisions (Luke 6:12–13) and in connection with significant crisis points (Matt. 14:23; 26:36–44; Luke 3:21; 9:29; John 12:27). He offers prayers that are not answered (Luke 22:41–44) and prayers that are (Heb. 5:7). Even as he tells his disciples to always pray and not give up (Luke 18:1 [which is also the meaning of the sometimes overly literalized “pray without ceasing” in 1 Thess. 5:17 NRSV]), so he himself wrestles in prayer (Luke 22:41–44; Heb. 5:7). He has prayed for his disciples (John 17; Luke 22:32), and even now, in heaven, he still intercedes for us (Heb. 7:25). Indeed, our intercession before God’s throne is valid because his is (Heb. 4:14–16).

The priesthood of Christ is one of his threefold offices. Jesus exercises his priestly office by offering himself up to God as a sacrifice (e.g., Heb. 2:17; 9:14–28) and by making continual intercession for the saints (John 17:6–24; Rom. 8:34; Heb. 7:25; 9:24). The priestly work of Christ figures prominently in the theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews based largely upon reflection of Ps. 110.

. A person from whom a person or group has descended in either a physical or a spiritual sense. For Israel, the concept of one’s ancestors and their God was of great significance in determining both identity and religious practice. Biblical concepts such as covenant and promise primarily found expression in the OT in terms of the ancestral agreements established with God (Deut. 6:10; 9:5; 29:13; 30:20; cf. Gen. 12:1–7). The effect of ancestors on one’s spiritual condition could have either positive or negative implications (Exod. 3:13; Josh. 24:14–15; 2 Tim. 1:5; Heb. 11). The people of Israel are portrayed as suffering judgment both for their sins and for those of their ancestors, but also they could find repentance and hope because of the same relationships (Zech. 1:4–6; Mal. 1:1–5).

There are thirteen primary genealogical lists in the OT and two in the NT, although there are numerous passages that include more limited lineages to identify an individual. Genealogical lists could also function to engender a notion of commonality of relationship outside single family lines, such as when extended family genealogies are given (Gen. 10; 25:12–18; 36:1–30). For priests and kings, it was of utmost importance to be able to establish ancestral identity. This necessity may have played a role in at least two discussions of Jesus. His genealogical lists in both Matt. 1 and Luke 3 established his claim to the line of David, and his spiritual ancestry in the person of Melchizedek in Heb. 7 granted him superior status to the priesthood of Levi.

Worship of ancestors, or the related but distinct cult of the dead, was common in nearly every culture with which Israel interacted and may have even found expression in popular practice among Israelites, as evidenced by the apparent leaving of gifts at several tomb locations throughout Palestine (cf. Ezek. 43:7–9). However, the biblical record is consistent throughout that such practices were prohibited. Among laws centered on the topic of ancestral worship were restrictions on consulting the dead at all (Deut. 18:11), giving offerings to the dead (Deut. 26:14), self-laceration for the dead (Deut. 14:1; Jer. 16:6), and seeking ancestors to foretell the future (Isa. 8:19; 65:4–8).

Aaron was Moses’ older brother (eighty-three and eighty years old respectively, according to Exod. 7:7) and his close associate during the days when God used both of them to establish his people Israel as a nation. Aaron’s particular importance came when God selected him to be the first high priest of Israel.

Aaron first appears in the account of Moses’ divine commission at the burning bush. God charged Moses to return to Egypt and lead his people out of bondage (Exod. 3:7–10). In spite of God’s assurance of divine support and ultimate success, Moses hesitated to accept the call, finally citing his lack of rhetorical skills (“I am slow of speech and tongue” [Exod. 4:10]). Finally, God revealed that Aaron was on the way to see Moses. Aaron could “speak well” (Exod. 4:14), so he would serve as Moses’ mouthpiece.

Aaron plays a supportive role in the Exodus account of the plagues and the departure from Egypt. He was at Moses’ side. As previously arranged, Aaron was the spokesperson, acting as a prophet to Moses, who was “like God to Pharaoh” (Exod. 7:1). Indeed, the early plagues often were initiated by Moses commanding Aaron to “stretch out” his staff (Exod. 8:5, 16; cf. 7:9), though later Moses took over this role.

After much struggle, Pharaoh finally allowed the Israelites to leave Egypt. Aaron is not specifically mentioned as playing a role at the climactic moment of the crossing of the Red Sea, but he appears again in Exod. 16 during the first report of the Israelite community’s grumbling about lack of food for the journey. Moses and Aaron were the objects of the grumbling (v. 2), with Aaron continuing his role as the one who speaks for Moses (vv. 9–10). Aaron also supported Moses’ leading position during the first battle in the wilderness (Exod. 17:8–16). When the Israelites fought the aggressive Amalekites, Israel had the upper hand only when Moses kept his walking staff, representing God’s presence, raised above his head. When his arms grew too tired to hold the staff aloft, Aaron and Hur were next to him, hoisting his arms high.

The event of greatest significance involving Aaron in the wilderness was his appointment as high priest. The divine mandate for his installation is recorded in Exod. 28. Aaron and his sons were to be “set apart” or “consecrated” (Heb. root qdsh) for service to God. They were given special garments that distinctively related them to the sanctuary (i.e., the similarity between the ephod and the innermost curtain of the tabernacle [“blue, purple and scarlet yarn”; Exod. 26:1; 28:6]). Instructions for the installation service are given in Exod. 29, but the event itself is reported in Lev. 8.

Aaron did not fare well on the one occasion when he acted independently from Moses. While Moses was on Mount Sinai receiving the two tablets of the law from the hand of God, Aaron gave in to the people’s request to make a calf idol out of golden earrings that they gave him. Whether this calf idol represented a false god or the Lord (see Exod. 32:5) is irrelevant because in either case the worship was illegitimate and brought great harm on God’s people. When Moses returned, he confronted Aaron, who gave lame excuses by blaming the people. Unexpectedly, the Levites, his own tribe, assisted Moses by killing many of those who worshiped the idol. For this act, the Levites were ordained to work as priestly assistants.

In spite of Aaron’s sin, God did not remove him from his priestly responsibilities (thanks to the prayers of Moses [Deut. 9:20]), the height of which was to preside over the annual Day of Atonement. The incident of the golden calf was not the only occasion when Aaron tried God’s patience. According to Num. 12, Aaron and his sister, Miriam, contested Moses’ leadership. Using his marriage to a Cushite woman as a pretext, Moses’ siblings asserted their equality. God, however, put them in their place, affirming Moses’ primacy.

Other tribal leaders questioned Aaron’s priestly leadership, according to Num. 17. Moses told all the tribal leaders to place their walking staffs along with Aaron’s before God at the tent of testimony. God showed his favor toward Aaron by causing his staff to bud.

Both Moses and Aaron forfeited their right to enter the land of promise when they usurped the Lord’s authority as they brought water from the rock in the wilderness (Num. 20:1–13). Sick and tired of the people’s complaining, Moses wrongly ascribed the ability to make water come from the rock to himself and Aaron, and rather than speaking to the rock, he struck it twice. For this, God told them that they would die in the wilderness. Aaron’s death is reported soon after this occasion (Num. 20:22–27).

Aaron is cited infrequently in subsequent Scripture, with the exception of priestly genealogies (1 Chron. 6:3, 49–50) or in historical reviews (Pss. 77:20; 99:6; 105:26). Psalm 133:2 presents a striking image of the blessings of communal unity by asking the reader to picture oil running down Aaron’s beard. In the NT, the most significant use of Aaron is in comparison to Jesus Christ, the ultimate high priest. Interestingly, the book of Hebrews argues that Jesus far surpassed the priestly authority of Aaron by connecting his priesthood to Melchizedek, a mysterious non-Israelite priest who blesses God and Abram in Gen. 14 (see Heb. 7:1–14).

In the ancient world, shame and honor are two binary opposites used to depict one’s status or behavior, which a culture approves or disapproves. The system of honor and shame serves as a primary means of social control. Thus, knowing how to act to conform to the code of social behavior expected by one’s group is essential to the maintenance of that community.

In the Bible, the noun “honor” is represented by kabod (from the verb “to be heavy”) in the OT, and by timē (from the verb “to honor”) in the NT. The reverse of honor is shame, which is represented by a variety of Hebrew and Greek terms, such as boshet in the OT, and aischynē in the NT.

In Israel, the Holiness Code (Lev. 17–26; cf. Num. 5:2–3; 8:6–7, 14–15) is comparable to the code of honor and shame. As a covenant community, Israel has the obligation to abide by the sanction imposed by God to attain honor (Deut. 4:6–8; 26:18–19; Pss. 34:5, 8–9; 37:18–19; 127:5; cf. 2 Chron. 26:18; Pss. 8:5; 62:7; 84:11; Rom. 2:7–11). Israel is honored (Exod. 32:11–12; Deut. 32:26–27) before the nations when God’s honor is upheld (Exod. 7:5; 10:1–2; 14:4, 17–18). Violation of covenantal stipulations—for example, deceptions in trading (Deut. 25:16), acts of “abomination” (Lev. 18:17, 22–23, 26–29), idolatry (Deut. 31:20; 32:15–17), and failure to perform duties prescribed in the law (Deut. 25:7–10)—results in disgrace before others (Exod. 32:25) and God (Deut. 28:25–26, 37).

The status of honor can be ascribed to an individual. A person is more honorable who is the firstborn (Gen. 49:3), comes from an esteemed family (Ps. 45:9), or is married into a dignified family (Gen. 41:45; Ruth 4:5). This worth will last a lifetime unless the reputation of the family is compromised, either because of economics (Ruth 1:1–21) or violation of the codes of conduct, such as adultery and incest (Exod. 20:14; Lev. 18:20; 20:10–21; Deut. 5:18; 22:22; Prov. 6:32–33), though not necessarily divorce (Deut. 24:1–4). Certain groups of people are honored because of special privilege granted to them (Prov. 8:15–16; Dan. 2:21; Rom. 13:1–5)—for example, priests (Exod. 28:2, 40; Ps. 110:4; Heb. 7:21), kings (Ps. 2:7), sages (Prov. 3:35), Israel (Exod. 19:6; Deut. 7:6; 8:11–9:7; 26:16–19), and the church (1 Pet. 2:9).

Wealth symbolizes one’s status and claims respect for its owners (Gen. 12:10–20; 14:21–24; 1 Kings 3:13; Prov. 3:16; 8:18; 22:4; Ps. 49:16; Isa. 61:6, 12) but does not equate the state of being poor with shame (cf. Ps. 12:5) unless it is a result of moral lassitude (Prov. 13:18). Parts of the human body symbolize worth and value. Certain parts of the body are less honorable than others, and to expose them is to invite disgrace (2 Sam. 10:4–5; 1 Chron. 19:4; Isa. 20:4; 1 Cor. 12:23–24).

The status of honor can also be achieved by an individual’s merits (cf. Rom. 2:7–11). Certain types of behavior are honorable—for example, humility (Prov. 15:33; 18:12; 29:23), taking care of one’s master (Prov. 27:18), honoring parents (Exod. 20:12; 21:15; 22:28; Prov. 19:26; Mal. 1:6; Matt. 15:4; Eph. 6:2), good service (Gen. 45:13), military exploits (2 Sam. 23:19–23; cf. 2 Chron. 32:21), almsgiving and justice (Prov. 21:21). One important aspect of achieving honor is the pursuit of wisdom. The ways of wisdom are honorable (Prov. 3:16–17; 4:8; 8:18), preserving a person from dishonor (Prov. 3:16–17, 31–33, 35; 24:14), but the ways of folly, such as injustice (Prov. 1:22; 14:31) and dishonoring parents (Prov. 30:17; cf. Exod. 20:12; 21:15; Lev. 20:9; Deut. 27:16), are a disgrace (Prov. 20:3; 26:1). The failure to perform one’s duty (Gen. 40:1–3) or a defeat in battle (Isa. 23:9; Lam. 1:8; Nah. 3:10) results in shame and, accordingly, loss of social status (Isa. 16:14; 23:9; Jer. 46:12; Lam. 1:6, 8; Hos. 4:7). An ultimate form of disgrace is to be hanged for public viewing (Deut. 21:22–23; Esther 5:14; 7:7–10; Matt. 27:32–44; Mark 15:22–32; Luke 23:33–43; John 19:17–24; 1 Cor. 1:18–25). In a patriarchal society, the status of women is obtained through their sexual exclusiveness. Their chastity (Gen. 38:24; Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:13–21; cf. 2 Sam. 13:13; Song 8:8–9) and fertility (Gen. 16:2; 30:2; 1 Sam. 1:3–8) become indicators of family and social worth.

The Letter to the Hebrews and the Letter to the Romans constitute the two great pillars of theology in the NT. Hebrews brings a high Christology and increases Christian understanding of Christ’s role as priest and pioneer of faith. From this book, deductions can be made regarding the early church’s understanding of OT interpretation and its view of typology.

Hebrews ends like a letter, but it does not begin like one. In particular, it lacks the names of the writer and the recipients. From the content, though, it is evident that this work is meant for a certain audience, familiar with the author. The author shows a loving pastoral concern for his readers, teaching them, exhorting them, and rebuking them when necessary. He gives them models of faith to encourage them and instructs them to encourage one another. The author describes the work as “my word of exhortation” (13:22). The book is often identified as a sermon.

Author

The letter is, strictly speaking, anonymous. No author is mentioned, and few clues as to his identity exist. He is known by his readers (13:19) and has a pastor’s heart for them (6:9). He and his audience are second-generation Christians; that is, they did not hear Jesus during his ministry but rather are dependent upon those who did (2:3). He is a companion of Timothy (13:23) and thus possibly in the circle of Paul. The letter shows that he has great organizational and rhetorical skills; he is intelligent and well educated; his writing indicates that he is likely from a Greek-speaking culture and is a converted Hellenistic Jew familiar with the Greek version of the OT. And he is a creative theologian with perspectives found nowhere else in the NT.

Early church tradition offers no name for the author. The letter’s later attribution to the apostle Paul probably granted it the authority necessary for canonicity, though problems with that view were readily apparent. The Greek is unlike Paul’s, and the rhetoric and theology are much different as well. The themes present in Hebrews are of only tangential interest to Paul. All the Pauline Epistles bear his self-identification, because he felt that his status as an apostle added authority to his words. And Paul did not consider himself to be a second-generation Christian, since he had seen the Lord himself (Gal. 1:12). Although the Catholic and Eastern Churches continue to ascribe the work to Paul, the Protestant Church has almost completely abandoned that idea.

In the absence of a known author, almost every name in the NT has been suggested, including Apollos, Barnabas, Luke, and Silas. While each name has merits and problems, too little is known to prove or disprove any prospective author. Yet, even without Pauline or other known authorship, the book maintains its authority.

Audience

The original readers almost certainly were a house church, part of a network of churches in an urban setting, likely either Jerusalem or Rome, with Rome being slightly preferred. The recipients were a specific group rather than the church at large as in the General Epistles (James, 1–2 Peter, 1–3 John, Jude); the author knew their circumstances (Heb. 10:32; 12:4; 13:17, 24). They were Jewish Christians who, possibly because of persecution, were in danger of drifting back into the Judaism they had left (see 10:32–39). The letter was written probably in the late 60s, as evidenced by the fact that there is no mention of the temple’s destruction, which occurred in AD 70. Given the reasoning of the author, it is quite hard to imagine that he would not mention this event were he writing after that date.

Themes

Hebrews presents two main themes. The first is faith and perseverance, especially in the face of persecution. Jesus is the pioneer of salvation through suffering (2:10) and can help those being tempted (2:18); he has been faithful to the one who appointed him (3:2) as the Son over God’s house (3:6), which is Christians who hold firmly to their confidence and hope (3:6). Christians share in Christ, if they hold their convictions firmly to the end (3:14). This is possible because Jesus is the great high priest, having ascended into heaven (4:14). A person falling away, not holding firmly, cannot be brought back again to repentance (6:4–6). Jesus has sacrificed himself once for all (7:27). Christians must hold unswervingly to the hope they profess, for the one who promised is faithful (10:23). Those who do will be richly rewarded (10:35–36).

Role models of faith are portrayed in chapter 11, the so-called Faith Chapter. The author presents Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and other OT figures as examples of living by faith. These serve as a “cloud of witnesses,” demanding “perseverance [in] the race marked out” for Christians (12:1). Jesus is the “pioneer and perfecter” of faith, enduring the cross and shame (12:2). Christians should endure hardship as discipline (12:7), which will produce a “harvest of righteousness” (12:11).

The second theme is the superiority of Christ, presented in a series of escalating comparisons between Jesus and every aspect of Judaism. The Son is a superior revelation from God (1:1–2). He is superior to the angels (1:4–14) and even to Moses (3:2–6). The Son’s Melchizedekian priesthood is superior to the Levitical priesthood (7:1–25). The new covenant brought by the Son is superior to the Mosaic covenant (8:6–13); the Son’s sacrifice is superior to the sacrifices offered under the Mosaic law (9:1–10:18).

Theology

The author brings his unique perspective to the work of Christ—his special roles as both high priest and sacrifice. Because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood (7:24), which is not a function of his ancestry but rather is “on the basis of the power of an indestructible life” (7:16). He meets the requirements of a priest, being “holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens” (7:26). He is a “priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek” (7:17, quoting Ps. 110:4). Melchizedek is a once-mentioned figure from Gen. 14:18. He was the king of Salem, a “priest of God Most High.” Abraham, and by extension Levi, paid him a tithe and received a blessing from him. Therefore, Melchizedek is superior to Levi, and his priestly order is superior to Levi’s. This priesthood, in fact, replaces the Levitical priesthood because the earlier priesthood could not produce perfection (Heb. 7:11), being “weak and useless” (7:18).

The Levitical priests had offered their sacrifices repeatedly, year after year, first for their own sins, then for those of the people. They had used the blood of bulls and goats to cleanse the tabernacle and accessories, because without the shedding of blood there can be no forgiveness of sin (9:22). There had been many priests, as death claimed each one. The priests, in all their weaknesses, had been appointed by the law. The sanctuary in which they serve is a “copy and shadow” of what is in heaven (8:5).

In contrast to the Levitical high priest, Jesus sits at “the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven” (8:1) and serves in the true tabernacle not made by human hands. He has been appointed not by the law but by the oath of God, which came after the law. He has no need to offer sacrifices day after day; his sacrifice was “once for all” (7:27), coming at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin (9:26). In fact, the repeated nature of the Levitical sacrifices serves as proof of their ineffectiveness. Had they been effective, they would have ceased. But “it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (10:4), even when offered in accordance with the law (10:8). The worshipers had been left with the same guilty consciences. Christ had “entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood” and obtained eternal redemption for all believers (9:12), sprinkling their hearts to cleanse them from guilty consciences (10:22)

Because of this, Christ is the mediator of the new covenant, prophesied in Jer. 31:31, which is superior to the Mosaic covenant. The first covenant has been made obsolete and will soon disappear (Heb. 8:13), as the new covenant is “established on better promises” (8:6). The tabernacle had been designed to demonstrate that there was no way into the most holy place for anyone but the high priest. Now, the blood of Jesus has opened a way through the curtain, allowing believers to “draw near to God with a sincere heart and with the full assurance of faith” (10:22).

Exhortations

Hebrews consists of theology interspersed with exhortations to the readers to persevere in the face of persecution, not to drift away from their new faith. These hortatory passages also serve as warnings. Because the new covenant is superior to the old one, its violation carries proportional penalties: since every violation of the old covenant had been met with its just punishment, “how shall we escape if we ignore so great a salvation?” (2:3). Believers must encourage one another, so that no one becomes “hardened by sin’s deceitfulness” (3:13). As recipients of new access to God, Christians must hold unswervingly to the hope, because God is faithful. This new access has completely replaced the old; there is no sacrifice remaining to forgive deliberate sinning. As those rejecting the law of Moses had died without mercy, those insulting the Spirit of grace will be punished more severely (10:29). Christians should consider “him who endured such opposition” so as not to “grow weary and lose heart” (12:3).

The author rebukes his readers for being lazy: “We have much to say about this, but it is hard to make it clear to you because you no longer try to understand” (5:11); but he patiently moves on beyond elementary teaching to teaching of Christian maturity (6:1). He warns them sternly that there is no reverse gear: those who have entered the sphere of Christian faith cannot fall away and then reenter at will; apostates would be “crucifying the Son of God all over again” (6:6). But then he softens the rebuke as a pastor: “Even though we speak like this, dear friends, we are convinced of better things in your case— the things that have to do with salvation” (6:9).

The author also shows great interest in the Sabbath rest promised to Moses. Those who had disobeyed were denied the rest (3:18), but the promise of entering his rest still stands (4:1). In fact, the Sabbath rest that remains is superior, or else it would not still be offered (4:8), and Christians must make every effort to enter that rest so that no one will perish (4:11).

Outline

The Letter to the Hebrews is very organized yet difficult to outline, owing to the manner in which the author handles his transitional material. The main theological argument (the superiority of the Son) is presented as a series of overlapping and interlocked comparisons interspersed with pastoral exhortations to perseverance. The connection between sections is often a keyword used in one section and then picked up and expanded in the next.

I. Introduction (1:1–4)

II. The Son Is Superior to the Angels (1:5–14)

III. Warning: Do Not Reject the Word Spoken through God’s Son (2:1–4)

IV. Jesus Is the Perfect Pioneer of Salvation because of His Suffering (2:5–18)

V. The Son Is Superior to Moses (3:1–19)

VI. The Sabbath Rest Is Still Available and Is Superior to the OT Rest (4:1–13)

VII. The Son Is a Superior High Priest (4:14–5:10)

VIII. Rebuke: You Are Still Spiritual Children (5:11–6:3)

IX. Warning: There Is No Return to the Former Covenant (6:4–12)

X. Jesus Completes the Oath God Gave Abraham (6:13–20)

XI. Jesus Is a Priest of Melchizedek’s Order, Superior to Levi’s Priesthood (7:1–25)

XII. The Priestly Function of Jesus Is Superior to That of the OT Priest (7:26–8:6)

XIII. The New Covenant of Jesus Is Superior to the Mosaic Covenant (8:7–13)

XIV. The Tabernacle of the New Covenant Is Superior to the Old (9:1–7)

XV. The Sacrifice of Christ Is Superior to the OT Sacrifices (9:8–10:20)

XVI. Exhortation to Persevere (10:21–39)

XVII. Faith Models (11:1–40)

XVIII. Exhortation to Righteous Living (12:1–13:17)

XIX. Closing Personal Greetings (13:18–25)

The appropriation and adaptation of an OT text in the NT, often labeled “biblical intertextuality,” “innerbiblical exegesis,” or “biblical allusion,” reflects the exegetical process whereby biblical writers deliberately appeal to the OT in order to elucidate, expand, or lend authority to NT revelation. This hermeneutical process finds its origins in the reuse of earlier OT texts by later OT writers. Later, the process was refined by the practices of scribal exegetes and rabbinical writers from the postexilic period well into the first century AD. This approach to interpretation recognized the dynamic character of Scripture and sought to contemporize its messages to address the issues facing changing audiences.

The biblical reader should keep in mind that as far as the NT writers were concerned, the OT texts comprised the authoritative corpus of material identified as the “Scriptures.” Consequently, the NT authors appeal to the authority of these accepted texts as the basis upon which to build or expand their theological argument, to reinforce their credentials as God’s spokesmen, and to appropriate and adapt OT revelation to address contemporary circumstances. The NT citation of an OT text assumes the familiarity of the audience with that earlier text, since the recollection of a specific Scripture by the NT writer in the formulation of his later message necessarily evokes in the minds of the audience a literary and logical connection. By drawing on the OT corpus, the NT author reinforces the continuity of God’s message and forges the identification of the NT audience with the experiences and promises made to their Israelite ancestors.

The most frequently cited OT books in the NT are Deuteronomy, Psalms, and Isaiah, underscoring the significance and importance of these early Israelite texts to the reformulation, expansion, and elucidation of NT revelation. In addition, the numerous NT references to these books indicate that they must have played a key role in the memories of the NT audience, forming the foundation for developing faith and doctrine.

Identifying Quotations and Allusions

One critical and often difficult task facing the reader centers on locating potential intertextual references in the NT, since not all scriptural citations and allusions are obvious, and the practice does not conform easily to an exacting scientific process. Familiarity with the OT increases the ability to recognize the borrowing of OT themes and passages by the NT. In addition, many NT writers understandably quoted from the LXX, the Greek translation of the OT, rather than from a Hebrew text tradition, since they themselves were writing in Greek. Consequently, some variations in wording based on the type of text tradition employed by the NT writer add complexity to the enterprise. In addition, NT writers often modeled the exegetical methods of their Jewish counterparts, which, though typical of their culture and environment, seem unorthodox to some scholars.

Richard Hays, in his 1989 book Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, presents seven criteria against which to evaluate the presence of biblical allusions: (1) availability (did the original author and readers have access to the source?); (2) volume (how extensive is the repetition of words from a previous text?); (3) recurrence (how often does the writer explicitly refer to the same passage?); (4) thematic coherence (does the quotation support the surrounding context?); (5) historical plausibility (could the writer have intended the alleged meaning?); (6) history of interpretation; and (7) satisfaction (does the citation illuminate the meaning of the surrounding text?). These principles provide a sufficient, if minimalistic, methodology for determining authentic instances of biblical intertextuality.

Quotations, Allusions, and Typology

The NT use of the OT generally falls into three broad categories: direct quotations (or citations), allusions, and typology.

Direct quotations. Quotations normally are identified by an introductory formula, such as “it is written” or “you have heard it said,” which serves to mark the upcoming quotation. In many instances the NT writer identifies the OT source, either by genre (e.g., “as it was spoken by the prophets”) or by the name of the author (“this was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah”). Occasionally, the NT writer relates his scriptural quotation or teaching to an individual, as in the case of the treatise on divorce in Matt. 19, where the Gospel writer repeatedly mentions Moses. In some instances the NT author combines parts of two different citations derived from two separate sources, attributing the entire quotation to one author, sometimes the more obscure of the two. For example, in Matt. 27:9, a discussion of the betrayal of Judas and the thirty pieces of silver, Matthew conflates Zech. 11:12–13 and Jer. 19:1–13 or (18:2–12 or 32:6–9) but assigns the entire citation to Jeremiah. The absence of a formal marker does not negate the possibility of textual borrowing; however, the literary connection between a NT passage and an OT predecessor would have to be established on the basis of literary affinities, rare terminology or expressions, thematic similarities, and associative concepts connecting the OT and the NT contexts.

Allusions and echoes. In contrast, biblical allusion employs no introductory or formulaic introduction identifying or marking the OT reference. While all direct quotations may be classified as biblical allusions, not all biblical allusions include direct citation formulas. Both direct citation and biblical allusion denote the deliberate borrowing and recontextualizing, transformation, or reinterpretation of a specific text, which has been incorporated into the later text in order to accommodate the writer’s message to a contemporary audience. The contextual environment of the antecedent, or OT text, influences and informs the interpretation of the NT text. The NT author intentionally evokes in the minds of his knowledgeable audience a specific textual referent along with its contextual associations, reformulating them in an innovative manner.

In a biblical echo, words or images are employed by a biblical writer in order to evoke conscious memories associated with multiple texts or with general themes. For example, the formulaic expression “the living God, who made the heavens and the earth and the sea and everything in them” (Acts 14:15) recalls multiple OT texts (e.g., Ps. 96:5; Isa. 42:5; Jon. 1:9) connected to incomparability statements reinforcing the sovereignty of God. The echo in Acts 17:26 generally recalls the creation account in Genesis, without invoking a specific verse or phrase. Although a NT writer may draw on biblical echoes without necessarily invoking a specific context of an individual passage, echoes may consist of interconnected layers of meaning that arise from differing historical settings and circumstances, each of which contributes additional meaning to the echo.

Typology and analogy. The NT writers often sought to employ OT texts by means of typology, reinforcing links between an OT event or concept and the subsequent development and transformation of that “type” in the NT. A “type” is a divinely appointed person, place, thing, or institution that has significance in its original literary and historical context but also points toward someone or something in later biblical revelation. The “antitype” denotes that which is prefigured by the original type. By means of typology, and to some degree, analogy, the NT writers demonstrate later revelation as superseding or fulfilling OT prophecies, underscoring the continuity of the NT with the OT and emphasizing its role as theologically transformative and expansive. Some predominant examples include the Passover lamb as a type of Christ (1 Pet. 1:19; cf. Rev. 5:11–14), the Aaronic priesthood compared and contrasted as a precursor of Christ’s priestly ministry (Heb. 5; 7–9), and the earthly tabernacle as a pattern for the heavenly tabernacle (Heb. 9).

The NT writers were also fond of analogy, delineating points of comparison between OT characters and accounts with NT teachings. For instance, Rom. 4 sets forth a lengthy discourse comparing Abraham’s justification by faith and the new relationship experienced by believers who are justified by faith through Christ. Analogy and typology are not mutually exclusive, as in the case of Rom. 4. Closely related to these hermeneutical methods is the infrequent use of allegory by the NT writers, such as the allegory of Sarah and Hagar in Gal. 4:21–31. The distinction lies in the nature of allegorical approach, which focuses on symbolism, or a “ ‘this’ really means ‘that’ ” interpretational framework.

The Roles of Context and Authorial Intent

Scholars continue to debate the extent to which the OT context influences and affects the NT message, particularly in the case of citations or allusions. Some suggest that biblical quotations are purely incidental and should be divorced from their original contextual moorings and evaluated independent of those contexts, while others understand the original context of an OT passage to contribute information that leads to correct NT interpretation. The question revolves around determining the degree of authorial intent. In other words, to what extent can today’s reader, historically removed by time and culture, recover the original intention behind the biblical writer’s calculated and deliberate use of an OT text as an interpretational tool? Current scholarship continues to debate the role of authorial intent in the innerbiblical exegetical process.

The appropriation and adaptation of an OT text in the NT, often labeled “biblical intertextuality,” “innerbiblical exegesis,” or “biblical allusion,” reflects the exegetical process whereby biblical writers deliberately appeal to the OT in order to elucidate, expand, or lend authority to NT revelation. This hermeneutical process finds its origins in the reuse of earlier OT texts by later OT writers. Later, the process was refined by the practices of scribal exegetes and rabbinical writers from the postexilic period well into the first century AD. This approach to interpretation recognized the dynamic character of Scripture and sought to contemporize its messages to address the issues facing changing audiences.

The biblical reader should keep in mind that as far as the NT writers were concerned, the OT texts comprised the authoritative corpus of material identified as the “Scriptures.” Consequently, the NT authors appeal to the authority of these accepted texts as the basis upon which to build or expand their theological argument, to reinforce their credentials as God’s spokesmen, and to appropriate and adapt OT revelation to address contemporary circumstances. The NT citation of an OT text assumes the familiarity of the audience with that earlier text, since the recollection of a specific Scripture by the NT writer in the formulation of his later message necessarily evokes in the minds of the audience a literary and logical connection. By drawing on the OT corpus, the NT author reinforces the continuity of God’s message and forges the identification of the NT audience with the experiences and promises made to their Israelite ancestors.

The most frequently cited OT books in the NT are Deuteronomy, Psalms, and Isaiah, underscoring the significance and importance of these early Israelite texts to the reformulation, expansion, and elucidation of NT revelation. In addition, the numerous NT references to these books indicate that they must have played a key role in the memories of the NT audience, forming the foundation for developing faith and doctrine.

Identifying Quotations and Allusions

One critical and often difficult task facing the reader centers on locating potential intertextual references in the NT, since not all scriptural citations and allusions are obvious, and the practice does not conform easily to an exacting scientific process. Familiarity with the OT increases the ability to recognize the borrowing of OT themes and passages by the NT. In addition, many NT writers understandably quoted from the LXX, the Greek translation of the OT, rather than from a Hebrew text tradition, since they themselves were writing in Greek. Consequently, some variations in wording based on the type of text tradition employed by the NT writer add complexity to the enterprise. In addition, NT writers often modeled the exegetical methods of their Jewish counterparts, which, though typical of their culture and environment, seem unorthodox to some scholars.

Richard Hays, in his 1989 book Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, presents seven criteria against which to evaluate the presence of biblical allusions: (1) availability (did the original author and readers have access to the source?); (2) volume (how extensive is the repetition of words from a previous text?); (3) recurrence (how often does the writer explicitly refer to the same passage?); (4) thematic coherence (does the quotation support the surrounding context?); (5) historical plausibility (could the writer have intended the alleged meaning?); (6) history of interpretation; and (7) satisfaction (does the citation illuminate the meaning of the surrounding text?). These principles provide a sufficient, if minimalistic, methodology for determining authentic instances of biblical intertextuality.

Quotations, Allusions, and Typology

The NT use of the OT generally falls into three broad categories: direct quotations (or citations), allusions, and typology.

Direct quotations. Quotations normally are identified by an introductory formula, such as “it is written” or “you have heard it said,” which serves to mark the upcoming quotation. In many instances the NT writer identifies the OT source, either by genre (e.g., “as it was spoken by the prophets”) or by the name of the author (“this was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah”). Occasionally, the NT writer relates his scriptural quotation or teaching to an individual, as in the case of the treatise on divorce in Matt. 19, where the Gospel writer repeatedly mentions Moses. In some instances the NT author combines parts of two different citations derived from two separate sources, attributing the entire quotation to one author, sometimes the more obscure of the two. For example, in Matt. 27:9, a discussion of the betrayal of Judas and the thirty pieces of silver, Matthew conflates Zech. 11:12–13 and Jer. 19:1–13 or (18:2–12 or 32:6–9) but assigns the entire citation to Jeremiah. The absence of a formal marker does not negate the possibility of textual borrowing; however, the literary connection between a NT passage and an OT predecessor would have to be established on the basis of literary affinities, rare terminology or expressions, thematic similarities, and associative concepts connecting the OT and the NT contexts.

Allusions and echoes. In contrast, biblical allusion employs no introductory or formulaic introduction identifying or marking the OT reference. While all direct quotations may be classified as biblical allusions, not all biblical allusions include direct citation formulas. Both direct citation and biblical allusion denote the deliberate borrowing and recontextualizing, transformation, or reinterpretation of a specific text, which has been incorporated into the later text in order to accommodate the writer’s message to a contemporary audience. The contextual environment of the antecedent, or OT text, influences and informs the interpretation of the NT text. The NT author intentionally evokes in the minds of his knowledgeable audience a specific textual referent along with its contextual associations, reformulating them in an innovative manner.

In a biblical echo, words or images are employed by a biblical writer in order to evoke conscious memories associated with multiple texts or with general themes. For example, the formulaic expression “the living God, who made the heavens and the earth and the sea and everything in them” (Acts 14:15) recalls multiple OT texts (e.g., Ps. 96:5; Isa. 42:5; Jon. 1:9) connected to incomparability statements reinforcing the sovereignty of God. The echo in Acts 17:26 generally recalls the creation account in Genesis, without invoking a specific verse or phrase. Although a NT writer may draw on biblical echoes without necessarily invoking a specific context of an individual passage, echoes may consist of interconnected layers of meaning that arise from differing historical settings and circumstances, each of which contributes additional meaning to the echo.

Typology and analogy. The NT writers often sought to employ OT texts by means of typology, reinforcing links between an OT event or concept and the subsequent development and transformation of that “type” in the NT. A “type” is a divinely appointed person, place, thing, or institution that has significance in its original literary and historical context but also points toward someone or something in later biblical revelation. The “antitype” denotes that which is prefigured by the original type. By means of typology, and to some degree, analogy, the NT writers demonstrate later revelation as superseding or fulfilling OT prophecies, underscoring the continuity of the NT with the OT and emphasizing its role as theologically transformative and expansive. Some predominant examples include the Passover lamb as a type of Christ (1 Pet. 1:19; cf. Rev. 5:11–14), the Aaronic priesthood compared and contrasted as a precursor of Christ’s priestly ministry (Heb. 5; 7–9), and the earthly tabernacle as a pattern for the heavenly tabernacle (Heb. 9).

The NT writers were also fond of analogy, delineating points of comparison between OT characters and accounts with NT teachings. For instance, Rom. 4 sets forth a lengthy discourse comparing Abraham’s justification by faith and the new relationship experienced by believers who are justified by faith through Christ. Analogy and typology are not mutually exclusive, as in the case of Rom. 4. Closely related to these hermeneutical methods is the infrequent use of allegory by the NT writers, such as the allegory of Sarah and Hagar in Gal. 4:21–31. The distinction lies in the nature of allegorical approach, which focuses on symbolism, or a “ ‘this’ really means ‘that’ ” interpretational framework.

The Roles of Context and Authorial Intent

Scholars continue to debate the extent to which the OT context influences and affects the NT message, particularly in the case of citations or allusions. Some suggest that biblical quotations are purely incidental and should be divorced from their original contextual moorings and evaluated independent of those contexts, while others understand the original context of an OT passage to contribute information that leads to correct NT interpretation. The question revolves around determining the degree of authorial intent. In other words, to what extent can today’s reader, historically removed by time and culture, recover the original intention behind the biblical writer’s calculated and deliberate use of an OT text as an interpretational tool? Current scholarship continues to debate the role of authorial intent in the innerbiblical exegetical process.

A distinction needs to be made between the various occurrences of the words “pray” and “prayer” in most translations of the Bible and the modern connotation of the same words. In the OT, the main Hebrew words translated as “to pray” and “prayer” (palal and tepillah) refer to the act of bringing a petition or request before God. They do not normally, if ever, refer to the other elements that we today think of as being included in the act of praying, such as praise or thanksgiving. The same is the case in the NT, where the main Greek words translated “to pray” and “prayer” (proseuchomai and proseuchē) also specifically denote making a petition or request to God. But other words and constructions in both Testaments are also translated “to pray” and “prayer,” and this article will deal with the larger concept, including praise, thanksgiving, petition, and confession, as opposed to the narrower meaning of the particular Hebrew and Greek terms (see also Praise; Thanksgiving; Worship).

Old Testament

In the OT there is no language or understanding comparable to modern ways of talking about prayer as conversational or dialogical. Prayer does not involve mutuality. Prayer is something that humans offer to God, and the situation is never reversed; God does not pray to humans. Understanding this preserves the proper distinction between the sovereign God and the praying subject. Therefore, prayers in the OT are reverential. Some OT prayers have extended introductions, such as that found in Neh. 1:5, that seem to pile up names for God. These should be seen as instances not of stiltedness or ostentation, but rather as setting up a kind of “buffer zone” in recognition of the distance between the Creator and the creature. In the NT, compare the same phenomenon in Eph. 1:17.

Many of the prayers in the OT are explicitly set in a covenantal context. God owes nothing to his creatures, but God has sworn to be faithful to those with whom he has entered into covenant. Thus, many OT prayers specifically appeal to the covenant as a motivation for both those praying and God’s answering (1 Kings 8:23–25; Neh. 1:5–11; 9:32; Pss. 25:10–11; 44:17–26; 74:20; 89:39–49). In postexilic books such as Ezra, Nehemiah, and Daniel, an important feature in the recorded prayers is the use of prior Scripture, praying God’s words (many times covenantal) back to him (in the NT, see Acts 4:24–30). Also, the closeness engendered by the covenant relationship between God and his people was unique in the ancient Near Eastern context. So Moses can marvel, “What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the Lord our God is near us whenever we pray to him?” (Deut. 4:7).

Prayer must be made from a heart that is right toward God. There is no guarantee that God will hear every prayer (Ps. 66:18; Prov. 1:28; Isa. 1:15; 59:2). For the most part, the “rightness” that God requires in prayer is “a broken and contrite heart” (Ps. 51:17; cf. Isa. 66:2).

Although several passages talk about prayer in the context of sacrifice (e.g., Gen. 13:4), there is surprisingly little emphasis on prayer in the legal texts about sacrifice in the Pentateuch, no prescriptions for the kinds of prayer or the words that are to be said in connection with the sacrifices. Interestingly, however, in later, perhaps postexilic contexts, where there is no temple and therefore no sacrifice, we find texts such as Ps. 141:2, where the petitioner asks God to accept prayer as if it were an offering of incense and the evening sacrifice (cf. Prov. 15:8; in the NT, see Rev. 5:8).

A presupposition of prayer in the OT is that God hears prayer and may indeed answer and effect the change being requested. Prayer is not primarily about changing the psychological state or the heart of the one praying, but rather about God changing the circumstances of the one praying.

There is a striking honesty, some would even say brashness, evident in many OT prayers. Jeremiah laments that God has deceived both the people (Jer. 4:10) and Jeremiah himself (20:7) and complains about God’s justice (12:1–4). Job stands, as it were, in God’s face and demands that the Almighty answer his questions (Job 31:35–37). The psalmist accuses God of having broken his covenant promises (Ps. 89:39). While it is true that God does, to some extent, rebuke Jeremiah and Job (Jer. 12:5; Job 38–42), he does not ignore them or cast them aside. This would seem, ultimately, to encourage such honesty and boldness on the part of those who pray.

Literarily, accounts of prayers in narratives serve to provide characterizations of the ones praying. The recorded prayers of people such as Abraham, Moses, Hannah, Ezra, and Nehemiah demonstrate their true piety and humility before God. By contrast, the prayer of Jonah recorded in Jon. 2, in its narrative context, betrays a certain hypocrisy on the part of the reluctant prophet.

New Testament

The depiction of prayer in the NT is largely consistent with that of the OT, but there are important developments.

Jesus tells his disciples to address God as “Father” (Matt. 6:9; cf. Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6). Although recent scholarship has demonstrated that “Abba” is not the equivalent of our “daddy,” it expresses a certain intimacy that goes beyond what was prevalent at the time, but retains an element of reverence as well. God is not just “Father,” but “our Father in heaven” (Matt. 6:9). Even Jesus addresses God as “Holy Father” (John 17:11), “Righteous Father” (John 17:25), and “Father, Lord of heaven and earth” (Matt. 11:25). And Paul, as mentioned earlier, uses a buffer zone, rarely in his epistles using the word “Father” by itself, but instead referring to “God our Father” (e.g., Rom. 1:7) and frequently using the phrase “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 15:6; 2 Cor. 1:3; 11:31; Eph. 1:3; cf. Eph. 1:17; Col. 1:3). God is our Father, but still he is a Father before whom one reverently kneels (Eph. 3:14).

Prayer to God is now to be made in the name of Jesus (Matt. 18:19–20; John 14:13; 15:16; 16:23–26). While there is some debate as to the exact nuance of this idea, it seems clear that, at the very least, prayers in Jesus’ name need to be ones that Jesus would affirm and are in accordance with his holy character and expressed will. It is, in essence, saying to God that the prayer being offered is one that Jesus would approve.

Prayer can also be made to Jesus (John 14:14), and such devotion to him in the early church is evidence of his being regarded as deity. The instances of this in the NT are rare, however, and generally either exclamatory or rhetorical (Acts 7:59; 1 Cor. 16:22; Rev. 22:20). The norm would still seem to be that prayer is to be made to the Father, through Jesus’ name.

Unlike anything prior in the OT, Jesus tells his followers to pray for their enemies (Matt. 5:44). Jesus and his followers serve as examples (Luke 23:34; Acts 7:60).

The Holy Spirit plays a vital role in prayers. It is by him that we are able to call out, “Abba, Father” (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6). The Spirit himself intercedes for us (Rom. 8:26). Our praying is to be done in the Spirit (Eph. 6:18; Jude 20; possibly 1 Cor. 14:15).

Jesus encourages fervent and even continual or repeated prayer (Luke 18:1–8), but not showy or repetitive prayer (Matt. 6:5–8).

Jesus becomes the model of prayer. He prays before important decisions (Luke 6:12–13) and in connection with significant crisis points (Matt. 14:23; 26:36–44; Luke 3:21; 9:29; John 12:27). He offers prayers that are not answered (Luke 22:41–44) and prayers that are (Heb. 5:7). Even as he tells his disciples to always pray and not give up (Luke 18:1 [which is also the meaning of the sometimes overly literalized “pray without ceasing” in 1 Thess. 5:17 NRSV]), so he himself wrestles in prayer (Luke 22:41–44; Heb. 5:7). He has prayed for his disciples (John 17; Luke 22:32), and even now, in heaven, he still intercedes for us (Heb. 7:25). Indeed, our intercession before God’s throne is valid because his is (Heb. 4:14–16).

A distinction needs to be made between the various occurrences of the words “pray” and “prayer” in most translations of the Bible and the modern connotation of the same words. In the OT, the main Hebrew words translated as “to pray” and “prayer” (palal and tepillah) refer to the act of bringing a petition or request before God. They do not normally, if ever, refer to the other elements that we today think of as being included in the act of praying, such as praise or thanksgiving. The same is the case in the NT, where the main Greek words translated “to pray” and “prayer” (proseuchomai and proseuchē) also specifically denote making a petition or request to God. But other words and constructions in both Testaments are also translated “to pray” and “prayer,” and this article will deal with the larger concept, including praise, thanksgiving, petition, and confession, as opposed to the narrower meaning of the particular Hebrew and Greek terms (see also Praise; Thanksgiving; Worship).

Old Testament

In the OT there is no language or understanding comparable to modern ways of talking about prayer as conversational or dialogical. Prayer does not involve mutuality. Prayer is something that humans offer to God, and the situation is never reversed; God does not pray to humans. Understanding this preserves the proper distinction between the sovereign God and the praying subject. Therefore, prayers in the OT are reverential. Some OT prayers have extended introductions, such as that found in Neh. 1:5, that seem to pile up names for God. These should be seen as instances not of stiltedness or ostentation, but rather as setting up a kind of “buffer zone” in recognition of the distance between the Creator and the creature. In the NT, compare the same phenomenon in Eph. 1:17.

Many of the prayers in the OT are explicitly set in a covenantal context. God owes nothing to his creatures, but God has sworn to be faithful to those with whom he has entered into covenant. Thus, many OT prayers specifically appeal to the covenant as a motivation for both those praying and God’s answering (1 Kings 8:23–25; Neh. 1:5–11; 9:32; Pss. 25:10–11; 44:17–26; 74:20; 89:39–49). In postexilic books such as Ezra, Nehemiah, and Daniel, an important feature in the recorded prayers is the use of prior Scripture, praying God’s words (many times covenantal) back to him (in the NT, see Acts 4:24–30). Also, the closeness engendered by the covenant relationship between God and his people was unique in the ancient Near Eastern context. So Moses can marvel, “What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the Lord our God is near us whenever we pray to him?” (Deut. 4:7).

Prayer must be made from a heart that is right toward God. There is no guarantee that God will hear every prayer (Ps. 66:18; Prov. 1:28; Isa. 1:15; 59:2). For the most part, the “rightness” that God requires in prayer is “a broken and contrite heart” (Ps. 51:17; cf. Isa. 66:2).

Although several passages talk about prayer in the context of sacrifice (e.g., Gen. 13:4), there is surprisingly little emphasis on prayer in the legal texts about sacrifice in the Pentateuch, no prescriptions for the kinds of prayer or the words that are to be said in connection with the sacrifices. Interestingly, however, in later, perhaps postexilic contexts, where there is no temple and therefore no sacrifice, we find texts such as Ps. 141:2, where the petitioner asks God to accept prayer as if it were an offering of incense and the evening sacrifice (cf. Prov. 15:8; in the NT, see Rev. 5:8).

A presupposition of prayer in the OT is that God hears prayer and may indeed answer and effect the change being requested. Prayer is not primarily about changing the psychological state or the heart of the one praying, but rather about God changing the circumstances of the one praying.

There is a striking honesty, some would even say brashness, evident in many OT prayers. Jeremiah laments that God has deceived both the people (Jer. 4:10) and Jeremiah himself (20:7) and complains about God’s justice (12:1–4). Job stands, as it were, in God’s face and demands that the Almighty answer his questions (Job 31:35–37). The psalmist accuses God of having broken his covenant promises (Ps. 89:39). While it is true that God does, to some extent, rebuke Jeremiah and Job (Jer. 12:5; Job 38–42), he does not ignore them or cast them aside. This would seem, ultimately, to encourage such honesty and boldness on the part of those who pray.

Literarily, accounts of prayers in narratives serve to provide characterizations of the ones praying. The recorded prayers of people such as Abraham, Moses, Hannah, Ezra, and Nehemiah demonstrate their true piety and humility before God. By contrast, the prayer of Jonah recorded in Jon. 2, in its narrative context, betrays a certain hypocrisy on the part of the reluctant prophet.

New Testament

The depiction of prayer in the NT is largely consistent with that of the OT, but there are important developments.

Jesus tells his disciples to address God as “Father” (Matt. 6:9; cf. Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6). Although recent scholarship has demonstrated that “Abba” is not the equivalent of our “daddy,” it expresses a certain intimacy that goes beyond what was prevalent at the time, but retains an element of reverence as well. God is not just “Father,” but “our Father in heaven” (Matt. 6:9). Even Jesus addresses God as “Holy Father” (John 17:11), “Righteous Father” (John 17:25), and “Father, Lord of heaven and earth” (Matt. 11:25). And Paul, as mentioned earlier, uses a buffer zone, rarely in his epistles using the word “Father” by itself, but instead referring to “God our Father” (e.g., Rom. 1:7) and frequently using the phrase “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 15:6; 2 Cor. 1:3; 11:31; Eph. 1:3; cf. Eph. 1:17; Col. 1:3). God is our Father, but still he is a Father before whom one reverently kneels (Eph. 3:14).

Prayer to God is now to be made in the name of Jesus (Matt. 18:19–20; John 14:13; 15:16; 16:23–26). While there is some debate as to the exact nuance of this idea, it seems clear that, at the very least, prayers in Jesus’ name need to be ones that Jesus would affirm and are in accordance with his holy character and expressed will. It is, in essence, saying to God that the prayer being offered is one that Jesus would approve.

Prayer can also be made to Jesus (John 14:14), and such devotion to him in the early church is evidence of his being regarded as deity. The instances of this in the NT are rare, however, and generally either exclamatory or rhetorical (Acts 7:59; 1 Cor. 16:22; Rev. 22:20). The norm would still seem to be that prayer is to be made to the Father, through Jesus’ name.

Unlike anything prior in the OT, Jesus tells his followers to pray for their enemies (Matt. 5:44). Jesus and his followers serve as examples (Luke 23:34; Acts 7:60).

The Holy Spirit plays a vital role in prayers. It is by him that we are able to call out, “Abba, Father” (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6). The Spirit himself intercedes for us (Rom. 8:26). Our praying is to be done in the Spirit (Eph. 6:18; Jude 20; possibly 1 Cor. 14:15).

Jesus encourages fervent and even continual or repeated prayer (Luke 18:1–8), but not showy or repetitive prayer (Matt. 6:5–8).

Jesus becomes the model of prayer. He prays before important decisions (Luke 6:12–13) and in connection with significant crisis points (Matt. 14:23; 26:36–44; Luke 3:21; 9:29; John 12:27). He offers prayers that are not answered (Luke 22:41–44) and prayers that are (Heb. 5:7). Even as he tells his disciples to always pray and not give up (Luke 18:1 [which is also the meaning of the sometimes overly literalized “pray without ceasing” in 1 Thess. 5:17 NRSV]), so he himself wrestles in prayer (Luke 22:41–44; Heb. 5:7). He has prayed for his disciples (John 17; Luke 22:32), and even now, in heaven, he still intercedes for us (Heb. 7:25). Indeed, our intercession before God’s throne is valid because his is (Heb. 4:14–16).

The safety and endurance of a Christian’s salvation. Theologians over the centuries have debated whether salvation can be lost, but several lines of argument taken from Scripture support the teaching that salvation by its very nature is eternal.

Election and Grace

Passages on divine election reveal that those who come to faith do so not merely out of personal choice, but ultimately because they have been chosen by God (Eph. 1:4). God draws those whom he chooses, and they respond to his call (John 6:37, 44, 65). If genuine believers could lose their salvation, it would imply that God’s purpose and plan in election had been ineffective, an idea that contradicts Scripture (John 6:39).

The apostle Paul maintains that salvation is bestowed by God as a gift of his grace (Rom. 3:24; 6:23; Eph. 1:7; 2:8–9). This free gift cannot be merited or earned. It is not granted or withheld on the basis of a person’s moral character, no matter how noble or wicked, and it is never merited or forfeited through anything a person does, no matter how good or evil. Rather, it is granted due to something that lies within the nature of God—his gracious character, his purpose, and his free choice. Salvation endures due to the same perfections in God that cannot change (Mal. 3:6; James 1:17). Although salvation is bestowed as a matter of God’s grace, faith is the means by which it is received (Rom. 3:21–25). Yet faith is not a work and is never said to earn God’s grace (Eph. 2:8). Good works are the evidence of a life that has experienced the grace of God.

Rebirth and Eternal Life

Scripture reveals that salvation is imparted through regeneration or rebirth. Jesus describes it as being “born again” (John 3:3, 7). Paul uses a related concept when he writes that we are saved “through the washing of rebirth” (Titus 3:5). Peter teaches essentially the same thing: “He has given us new birth” (1 Pet. 1:3). The life that is imparted is “eternal” (John 3:16; 10:28; 17:2; Rom. 6:23). Paul maintains that God’s gifts and call are irrevocable (Rom. 11:29). Thus, there is no notion in the Scriptures that a regenerated follower of Christ ever becomes unregenerate, nor does eternal life ever morph into something temporal. In praying to the Father, Jesus notes that believers are a gift from the Father to the Son, and that none of them would be lost (John 17:2, 12). Judas Iscariot’s perdition clearly was part of God’s sovereign plan (John 17:12; Acts 1:16).

Protection of the Believer

The Holy Spirit is said to seal or be the seal of believers. Paul writes, “When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit” (Eph. 1:13). This refers to the divine ownership and protection granted to the believer, who has been given “the Spirit as a deposit,” guaranteeing that God will finish the work that he began (2 Cor. 5:5; Phil. 1:6). Jesus taught the same truth regarding the believer’s security: “No one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand” (John 10:28–29). Peter maintained this same confidence when he wrote that the believer is shielded through faith “by God’s power” (1 Pet. 1:5). One of the strongest arguments for the security of the believer is found in Rom. 8:38–39: “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.” Something greater than God would be needed to wrestle salvation from those to whom he has granted it.

Not all Christians believe that the Bible teaches eternal security, citing passages that seem to imply that a saved individual can again become lost and suffer eternal judgment, most likely referring to the severe yet temporal discipline of God directed toward his erring children or toward those who depart from the faith because they were merely professing believers (Matt. 13:20–21, 24–30; John 15:6; 1 Cor. 11:30–32; 2 Cor. 11:13–15; 2 Tim. 4:10, 14; Heb. 6:4–9; 10:26–31; 2 Pet. 2:1, 22; 1 John 2:19; 5:16; 2 John 9; Rev. 2:5, 16). But those who defend the doctrine believe these passages do not contradict this teaching; they merely reveal that God purposes to accomplish this work with the cooperation of the believer (1 John 5:4; Rev. 2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12, 21).

The writer to the Hebrews, who lays down some of the most severe warnings in the NT, nevertheless maintains that God is “able for all time to save,” and that his readers did not belong to those who “shrink back and so are lost” (Heb. 7:25; 10:39 NRSV). Jude asserts that God is able to present the believer “without fault” before his presence (Jude 24). Essentially, this is what Jesus says in John 10:28–29: “They shall never perish” (cf. 17:12). The loss of one sheep would impugn the power and character of God, who not only saves by grace but also keeps us by his grace and in his grace (Rom. 5:2).

In the ancient world, shame and honor are two binary opposites used to depict one’s status or behavior, which a culture approves or disapproves. The system of honor and shame serves as a primary means of social control. Thus, knowing how to act to conform to the code of social behavior expected by one’s group is essential to the maintenance of that community.

In the Bible, the noun “honor” is represented by kabod (from the verb “to be heavy”) in the OT, and by timē (from the verb “to honor”) in the NT. The reverse of honor is shame, which is represented by a variety of Hebrew and Greek terms, such as boshet in the OT, and aischynē in the NT.

In Israel, the Holiness Code (Lev. 17–26; cf. Num. 5:2–3; 8:6–7, 14–15) is comparable to the code of honor and shame. As a covenant community, Israel has the obligation to abide by the sanction imposed by God to attain honor (Deut. 4:6–8; 26:18–19; Pss. 34:5, 8–9; 37:18–19; 127:5; cf. 2 Chron. 26:18; Pss. 8:5; 62:7; 84:11; Rom. 2:7–11). Israel is honored (Exod. 32:11–12; Deut. 32:26–27) before the nations when God’s honor is upheld (Exod. 7:5; 10:1–2; 14:4, 17–18). Violation of covenantal stipulations—for example, deceptions in trading (Deut. 25:16), acts of “abomination” (Lev. 18:17, 22–23, 26–29), idolatry (Deut. 31:20; 32:15–17), and failure to perform duties prescribed in the law (Deut. 25:7–10)—results in disgrace before others (Exod. 32:25) and God (Deut. 28:25–26, 37).

The status of honor can be ascribed to an individual. A person is more honorable who is the firstborn (Gen. 49:3), comes from an esteemed family (Ps. 45:9), or is married into a dignified family (Gen. 41:45; Ruth 4:5). This worth will last a lifetime unless the reputation of the family is compromised, either because of economics (Ruth 1:1–21) or violation of the codes of conduct, such as adultery and incest (Exod. 20:14; Lev. 18:20; 20:10–21; Deut. 5:18; 22:22; Prov. 6:32–33), though not necessarily divorce (Deut. 24:1–4). Certain groups of people are honored because of special privilege granted to them (Prov. 8:15–16; Dan. 2:21; Rom. 13:1–5)—for example, priests (Exod. 28:2, 40; Ps. 110:4; Heb. 7:21), kings (Ps. 2:7), sages (Prov. 3:35), Israel (Exod. 19:6; Deut. 7:6; 8:11–9:7; 26:16–19), and the church (1 Pet. 2:9).

Wealth symbolizes one’s status and claims respect for its owners (Gen. 12:10–20; 14:21–24; 1 Kings 3:13; Prov. 3:16; 8:18; 22:4; Ps. 49:16; Isa. 61:6, 12) but does not equate the state of being poor with shame (cf. Ps. 12:5) unless it is a result of moral lassitude (Prov. 13:18). Parts of the human body symbolize worth and value. Certain parts of the body are less honorable than others, and to expose them is to invite disgrace (2 Sam. 10:4–5; 1 Chron. 19:4; Isa. 20:4; 1 Cor. 12:23–24).

The status of honor can also be achieved by an individual’s merits (cf. Rom. 2:7–11). Certain types of behavior are honorable—for example, humility (Prov. 15:33; 18:12; 29:23), taking care of one’s master (Prov. 27:18), honoring parents (Exod. 20:12; 21:15; 22:28; Prov. 19:26; Mal. 1:6; Matt. 15:4; Eph. 6:2), good service (Gen. 45:13), military exploits (2 Sam. 23:19–23; cf. 2 Chron. 32:21), almsgiving and justice (Prov. 21:21). One important aspect of achieving honor is the pursuit of wisdom. The ways of wisdom are honorable (Prov. 3:16–17; 4:8; 8:18), preserving a person from dishonor (Prov. 3:16–17, 31–33, 35; 24:14), but the ways of folly, such as injustice (Prov. 1:22; 14:31) and dishonoring parents (Prov. 30:17; cf. Exod. 20:12; 21:15; Lev. 20:9; Deut. 27:16), are a disgrace (Prov. 20:3; 26:1). The failure to perform one’s duty (Gen. 40:1–3) or a defeat in battle (Isa. 23:9; Lam. 1:8; Nah. 3:10) results in shame and, accordingly, loss of social status (Isa. 16:14; 23:9; Jer. 46:12; Lam. 1:6, 8; Hos. 4:7). An ultimate form of disgrace is to be hanged for public viewing (Deut. 21:22–23; Esther 5:14; 7:7–10; Matt. 27:32–44; Mark 15:22–32; Luke 23:33–43; John 19:17–24; 1 Cor. 1:18–25). In a patriarchal society, the status of women is obtained through their sexual exclusiveness. Their chastity (Gen. 38:24; Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:13–21; cf. 2 Sam. 13:13; Song 8:8–9) and fertility (Gen. 16:2; 30:2; 1 Sam. 1:3–8) become indicators of family and social worth.