(1) Son of Jotham, king of Judah, and father of Hezekiah. His reign is described in 2 Kings 16 and 2 Chron. 28, and his confrontation by the prophet Isaiah in Isa. 7:1–17. Isaiah’s oracle against the Philistines is dated the year of Ahaz’s death (Isa. 14:28). Hosea and Micah prophesied during his reign (Hos. 1:1; Mic. 1:1). Ahaz reigned for sixteen years (743–727 BC). He followed the syncretistic pagan practices of the Israelite kings. When besieged by the Syrian and Israelite kings, with the aim of replacing him with a puppet ruler (734 BC), he sent a massive tribute to elicit Assyrian protection (2 Kings 16:5–9). This resulted in pro-Assyrian religious compromise (16:10–18). The goal of Isaiah’s embassy to the fearful Ahaz was to encourage a response of faith (Isa. 7:9). Though Isaiah offered him any sign of his choosing, Ahaz masked his refusal in a facade of piety about not testing God (Isa.7:10–12; cf. Deut. 6:16). The hypocritical Ahaz did not want a sign because he had no intention of trusting God in this national crisis. The exasperated prophet responded by announcing the sign of Immanuel.

(2) A Benjamite, a descendant of Saul (1 Chron. 8:35–36; 9:41–42).

A conduit used to transport water from one place to another. It could be either a trough cut into rock or soil, or pipes made from stone or other materials. Aqueducts were used in OT times to transport water into cities from nearby springs. The “aqueduct of the Upper Pool” in Jerusalem is mentioned in 2 Kings 18:17; Isa. 7:3; 36:2. Its location is uncertain, though it is said to be “on the road to the Washerman’s Field.” Hezekiah’s tunnel was an underground aqueduct that took water from the Gihon Spring to the Pool of Siloam (2 Kings 20:20). The conduit was in existence prior to Hezekiah, but he fortified and improved it in preparation for an imminent attack by the Assyrians instigated by his rebellion against them (2 Chron. 32:1–3, 30). (See also Tunnel.)

In NT times, the Romans built many aqueducts to carry water from springs and mountain streams to cities. Often these were underground conduits, but also they were constructed as large, arched structures made of stone and mortar that gradually sloped downward. The remains of an impressive Roman aqueduct that transported water from the Carmel Mountains to the coast can still be seen in the ruins of Caesarea Maritima. The reference in Rev. 3:14–22 to the “lukewarm” church at Laodicea likely alludes to the tepid water that arrived via aqueduct from springs five miles south of the city.

Descendants of Shem (Gen. 10:22) and Nahor (Gen. 22:21) identified in the LXX and English translations as “Syrians.” According to the patriarchal narratives in Genesis, Arameans originated from Upper Mesopotamia in the early second millennium. Abraham is referred to as a “wandering Aramean” (Deut. 26:5), which suggests that the Hebrews descended from Arameans.

The Arameans gradually grew until increasing numbers, famine, drought, or other agents forced them to spread east and west. Their eastern expansion faced opposition by the Assyrian Empire, whose sources record numerous conflicts between their kings and the “Ahlamu” (the Assyrian reference to the Arameans).

The western expansion impacted ancient Israel as early as the days of Saul (1 Sam. 14:47). David defeated the alliance of the Ammonites with the Aramean king Hadadezer (2 Sam. 8:3–8; 10–12). King Asa of Judah made a treaty with an Aramean king in his war against Baasha of Israel (1 Kings 15:16–22). King Ahab was defeated and killed in his battles with the Arameans (1 Kings 22:1–38). Later, God provided a “deliverer” (possibly an Assyrian king or officer), which relieved Aramean pressures upon Israel (2 Kings 13:3–5). This allowed Jehoash of Israel to defeat the Arameans and regain previously lost territories. In the eighth century BC the Aramean king Rezin, in alliance with Israel and Tyre, attempted to force Ahaz of Judah into their league to oppose the growing Assyrian threat (2 Kings 16:5–9; Isa. 7:1–9). By the end of the eighth century, all Aramean territories had become provinces in the Assyrian Empire.

Very little is known about Aramean society. They were nomadic pastoralists who established tribal states throughout Mesopotamia. By the ninth century BC, these states developed into monarchies, their kings competing for power and greater territories. There was never an Aramean empire. Although the Arameans were polytheistic, Hadad was the most prominent deity and the patron of the kings. The Aramaic language had a long-lasting influence in the ancient world. It was adopted as the official language of international diplomacy during the time of the Persian Empire and remained so even into the Hellenistic era.

Geography and Origins

The geographic center of Assyria consisted of a triangle between the Kurdish mountains, the Tigris River, and the Upper Zab River (which flows into the Tigris). This triangle sits within the modern-day country of Iraq and for the most part contained the four most important cities in the history of ancient Assyria: Ashur, Nineveh, Arbela, and Calah. At the height of its power, the Assyrian Empire stretched far beyond this geographical region, but this heartland served as the political and social base throughout its history.

Although there were some individual city-states such as Ashur and Nineveh in this heartland during the third millennium BC, Assyria as a unified political entity did not arise until the mid-second millennium. Other than a brief alliance of some of the city-states under Shamshi-Adad I in the eighteenth century BC, which was not called Assyria, the first Assyrian political state began with Ashur-uballit I (c. 1364–1329 BC). From the earliest times the lack of certain resources in the heartland and the location of these city-states along major trading routes made commerce a central component of the Assyrian economy.

Political and Military History

The Middle Assyrian Period (1364–934 BC). The first great ruler of Assyria was Ashur-uballit I, who ruled for thirty-five years. During his reign, he controlled Babylon to the south, but during the fifty years following his death, his descendants lost control of Babylon due to the rise of the Kassite dynasty there. In 1273 BC, with the rise of Ashur-uballit’s great-grandson Shalmaneser I, Assyria began to grow into an empire that dominated the ancient Near East. He defeated the Hittites and the Arameans and annexed the territory of Mitanni, to the west. The brutal method of warfare and treatment of captives for which Assyria would become famous can already be seen in Shalmaneser’s descriptions of his military campaigns.

After the death of Shalmaneser I, his son Tukulti-Ninurta I (c. 1243–1207 BC) expanded the Assyrian state even more through a series of successful military campaigns. He defeated the resurging Hittites to the west and a number of people groups in the mountains to the north and east. But most important, he conquered and reclaimed Babylon to the south. This had two significant implications. With Babylon now subdued, the only major check on Assyrian power was eliminated, leaving the Assyrians free to expand. Second, elements of Babylonian culture were more easily appropriated into Assyrian culture. It even appears that the statue of the god Marduk was carried from Babylon back to Assyria. Eventually Tukulti-Ninurta was assassinated in a palace revolt led by his son. The internal strife of the empire (which came to fruition in this coup), coupled with external factors that resulted in an increased threat from the west, resulted in a period of decline for the Assyrian Empire that would last a little less than a century.

Although Assyria regained internal stability and prosperity under Ashur-resha-ishi I (c. 1132–1115 BC), the next resurgence of Assyrian power came with the ascension of Tiglath-pileser I (1114–1076 BC) to the throne. At the very beginning of his reign, Tiglath-pileser successfully countered an attack from the west by the Mushku. His successful campaign against the Mushku began an expansion to the west that brought territory and spoils to the Assyrian Empire but also resulted in conflict with the Arameans, who were based in Syria but interested in expanding into Mesopotamia. When Tiglath-pileser’s troops clashed with Aramean forces at Jebel Bishri in central Syria, the Assyrian victory resulted in the acquisition of all of Syria and allowed Tiglath-pileser to press the borders of the Assyrian Empire all the way to the Mediterranean Sea. To the south Tiglath-pileser also led successful campaigns that resulted in the capture of major Babylonian cities such as Babylon and Sippar. By the time of his death in 1076 BC, the Assyrian Empire stretched from the Mediterranean Sea in the west to the Arabian Gulf in the southeast, a dominance unrivaled in the previous history of the ancient Near East. This sweeping success of Tiglath-pileser also resulted in cultural developments, including substantial building projects and the compilation of legislation and edicts by professional scribes.

The Neo-Assyrian Empire (934–612 BC). After the death of Tiglath-pileser, Assyria entered another period of decline due to the absence of a sufficient administrative structure to rule the enormous territory of the empire as well as the increasing pressure by the Arameans. However, Assyria again gained stability under Ashur-dan II (c. 934–912 BC). He began to renew military campaigns to recover lands previously held and fortified the capital city of Ashur. His two successors, Adad-nirari II (911–891 BC) and Tukulti-Ninurta II (890–884 BC), continued the successful military campaigns and ambitious building projects. This revival of the Assyrian Empire under Ashur-dan II marks the beginning of what historians call the Neo-Assyrian Empire, an era of power that would last for three hundred years and grow to supersede the accomplishments of all prior Assyrian reigns.

In 883 BC Ashurnasirpal II came to power. Under him the Assyrian army became better organized and thus more efficient and engaged in military campaigns regularly instead of sporadically. There was also an increase in the brutality exercised by the Assyrian army in order to dissuade smaller states from attempting to resist Assyria’s expansion. Ashurnasirpal II also built the small town of Calah into a major city and relocated the capital of Assyria there.

Shortly after inheriting the Assyrian empire in 858 BC, Ashurnasirpal II’s son Shalmaneser III turned his attention to the north and the west and began moving to assert Assyrian control over those territories. In 853 BC he dismantled a northern alliance and then proceeded southward. At Qarqar Shalmaneser’s forces clashed with the Damascus coalition, which consisted of a number of nations, including Israel under King Ahab, that had banded together to resist the Assyrian encroachment. This battle is not mentioned in the Bible, but the lopsided nature of the victory claimed by the Assyrians seems overstated, since Shalmaneser continued to fight against the Damascus coalition over the next decade. By 841 BC, King Jehu of Israel, Tyre, and Sidon had voluntarily submitted to Assyrian control. As Shalmaneser grew old, he delegated more and more authority to those under him, creating friction among his subordinates and sons over the direction of the monarchy. Even though Shalmaneser’s son Shamshi-Adad V (823–811 BC) emerged as the monarch after his father’s death, instability within the kingdom and the rapidly increasing external threat of the Urartian Empire to the north resulted in a weakening of the Assyrian Empire that would last for almost a century until the rise of Tiglath-pileser III in 744 BC.

With the ascension of Tiglath-pileser III (744–727 BC) to the throne, the empire entered a hundred-year period that would be the golden age of Assyrian rule in the ancient Near East. In addition to reclaiming lands lost in the previous century to Urartu, he reasserted Assyrian control over Damascus, Hamath, Byblos, Tyre, and Samaria. Shortly afterward, King Pekah of Israel and King Rezin of Damascus banded together to resist Assyrian hegemony in what is called the “Syro-Ephraimite coalition.” When they tried to force King Ahaz of Judah to join them, he appealed to Tiglath-pileser for help in exchange for fealty, against the counsel of Isaiah (see 2 Kings 16; 2 Chron. 28; Isa. 7). In 734 BC Tiglath-pileser crushed the coalition, captured Gaza, and developed it into a trade center between Assyria and Egypt. In addition to improving the military and restructuring the administration of the empire, Tiglath-pileser instituted the policy of deporting and exiling subjects who rebelled against him, a policy that his successors would continue.

The next king over Assyria, Shalmaneser V, ruled for only about four years (726–722 BC). His chief importance is that he conquered Samaria, the capital of the northern kingdom of Israel (see 2 Kings 17–18), though he was killed around the same time. The next king, Sargon II (721–705 BC), exiled the northern Israelites and settled in their place peoples from Syria and Babylonia. Sargon also built an entirely new capital, Dur-Sharrukin, just a few miles north of Nineveh.

In 704 BC Sargon’s son Sennacherib came to the throne and established the Assyrian capital at Nineveh. The kingdom of Judah and its capital, Jerusalem, became a top priority for Sennacherib because Judah was not only refusing submission to Assyria but also allying itself with Egypt and Ethiopia against Assyria. In 701 BC Sennacherib invaded Palestine, and at Eltekeh the Assyrian forces clashed with a coalition of Egyptian and Ethiopian forces that had come to the aid of Hezekiah, king of Judah. After defeating these forces, Sennacherib marched toward Jerusalem. Along the way he laid waste to the Judean countryside and exiled the inhabitants. The brunt of the damage was done in the Shephelah region, especially the city of Lachish. Although Sennacherib is not named explicitly, these are the circumstances that seem to be reflected in Mic. 1:8–16. When Sennacherib’s army reached Jerusalem, it laid siege to the capital city. Although Sennacherib had gone to Libnah, he sent his Rabshakeh (a senior official in the Assyrian army) to press his claims. The account of the ensuing standoff between Hezekiah and the Rabshakeh is given in three places in the Bible: 2 Kings 18–19; 2 Chron. 32; and Isa. 36–37. According to the Bible, the angel of the Lord slaughtered much of the Assyrian army, forcing the survivors to retreat and thus delivering Jerusalem. Variant accounts are given by Josephus (Ant. 10.1.4–5) and Herodotus (Hist. 2.141).

After the death of Sennacherib in 681 BC, his son Esarhaddon took control of the Assyrian Empire until 669 BC. During his reign Assyria gained superficial control of Egypt. Before his death he appointed Ashurbanipal as his heir over Assyria (668–612 BC), but he made Shamash-shuma-ukin the king over Babylonia. This fateful move eventually led to the downfall of Assyria because it resulted in civil war. With its resources already depleted by the vast empire, Assyria crumbled in the late seventh century BC to a coalition of Babylonian, Median, and Scythian forces. The end came quickly, and in 612 BC Nineveh was sacked (see the book of Nahum) and the Neo-Babylonian Empire was born.

Culture and Religion

A key characteristic of Assyrian culture was militarism. War was not simply a means of survival but also lay at the heart of the entire Assyrian social structure, from the king down to the poorest peasant. Assyrian inscriptions are replete with boasting about military campaigns and victories, which were a central requirement for a king’s reign to be considered successful. Among the general population, the duty of a warrior was held in high esteem, and all men were viewed as potential soldiers.

Because of the militaristic and imperial bent of the culture, the society enjoyed a high standard of living under successful monarchs. In addition to the natural bounty of the Assyrian heartland, the control over a large area of subjected vassal states resulted in enrichment through taxes and tributes. The militaristic character of the culture is also evident in the Assyrian’s favorite forms of recreation: hunting, archery, and javelin throwing, among others.

However, even though Assyrian culture could be quite prosperous, there was little literary production. Instead, the Assyrians were largely content to borrow from the Babylonians for works on science, religion, and history. During his reign Ashurbanipal sent servants throughout Babylonia to collect as much Babylonian literature as could be found. He then assembled a library in Nineveh to house these texts. The library contained a large number of reference works on the practice of divination and lexical works. There are also literary works such as myths and epics, hymns and prayers, and some historical accounts.

Assyrian religion was also influenced by Babylonian beliefs and practices. Both cultures were polytheistic, though there are lists that give a hierarchical order of certain gods. The principal god of the Assyrian culture was Ashur, but the goddess Ishtar and the gods Ninurta, Shamash, Adad, and Sin were also important. The Babylonian deities Marduk, Enlil, and Nebo also found their way into Assyrian religious practice, and the most important religious festival in Assyria, the New Year’s festival, was heavily influenced by Babylonian religion. Each god or goddess had a cultic center with a ziggurat and priests and a schedule of religious rituals. In Assyrian religion the king played an especially prominent role because he was the chief priest and, though not actually divine, was considered to be the representative of the deity, and his presence was required at some religious ceremonies such as the New Year’s festival.

By the time of the Neo-Assyrian period, divination played an important role in Assyrian religion because it was believed that one could read the will of the gods, including the events of the future, through highly developed rituals. Those who had been trained in divination, frequently Babylonians, could discern the signs through extispicy (examining the entrails of sacrificial animals), hepatoscopy (reading animal livers), astrology (studying the stars), or other unusual events such as dreams or birth defects. This religious environment also produced widespread use of witchcraft and magic, which provided an avenue of religious involvement for the commoner not available in the official cults.

Israelite men, like most of their ancient Near Eastern neighbors, wore full beards, as is plain from casual references to bearded faces (e.g., 1 Sam. 21:13; 2 Sam. 20:9; Ps. 133:2; Jer. 41:5). A way of shaming a man was to forcibly shave him (e.g., 2 Sam. 10:4–5), and Isaiah’s threat of an Assyrian invasion of Judah comes in the form of the imagery of shaving the head and pubic hair (lit., “the hair of your legs”; Isa. 7:20). This divinely wrought judgment (“the Lord will use a razor hired from beyond the Euphrates River”) will also include the shaving off of the beard. The beards of captives of war were shaved as a sign of disgrace (Isa. 3:17; 15:2; Jer. 48:37); Ezekiel, in one of his prophetic signs, shaved his head and his beard in imitation of what will happen to the inhabitants of Jerusalem when taken captive (5:1–4). The suffering of God’s servant included his opponents pulling out his beard (Isa. 50:6). On the other hand, the voluntary shaving off of the beard was one of several traditional signs of mourning and sorrow (Jer. 41:5), as was pulling out hair from the beard (Ezra 9:3). These customs apparently do not come under the ban in Lev. 19:27; 21:5 (the latter especially applied to priests) against clipping the beard in conformity with Canaanite religious practice.

In Josh. 24 “beyond the River” (NRSV; NIV: “beyond the Euphrates River”) refers to the land of Abraham’s birth, east of the Euphrates. Because Israel’s ancestors worshiped other gods there, and God took Abraham from there to bring him to Canaan, it signified a threshold in redemptive history. Joshua invoked this place and memory when he called Israel to renew the covenant.

Israel under David defeated Aramean troops from there (2 Sam. 10:16–19; 1 Chron. 19:16–19). Since prophets later said Israel would be exiled there (1 Kings 14:15), and Judah’s punishment would come from there (Isa. 7:20), the place name came to imply threat.

In 522 BC Darius I reorganized the vast Persian Empire into twenty satrapies, each comprised of provinces (Esther 1:1; 8:9). The satrapy of “Beyond the River” (Ezra 4:10–11 NRSV; NIV: “Trans-Euphrates”) extended from the Euphrates to the Mediterranean, and Yehud (Judah) was one of its provinces. In the mid-fifth century Persia built a network of fortresses there to maintain imperial control of local affairs and curtail rebellion.

Being prickly and hardy, this plant carries negative connotations such as torment (Judg. 8:7; John 19:2), vexing enemies (Isa. 27:4; Ezek. 28:24), and judgment (Isa. 5:6; 7:23–25). It is also planted as a hedge for protection (Isa. 5:5).

A conduit used to transport water from one place to another. It could be either a trough cut into rock or soil, or pipes made from stone or other materials. Aqueducts were used in OT times to transport water into cities from nearby springs. The “aqueduct of the Upper Pool” in Jerusalem is mentioned in 2 Kings 18:17; Isa. 7:3; 36:2. Its location is uncertain, though it is said to be “on the road to the Washerman’s Field.” Hezekiah’s tunnel was an underground aqueduct that took water from the Gihon Spring to the Pool of Siloam (2 Kings 20:20). The conduit was in existence prior to Hezekiah, but he fortified and improved it in preparation for an imminent attack by the Assyrians instigated by his rebellion against them (2 Chron. 32:1–3, 30). (See also Tunnel.)

In NT times, the Romans built many aqueducts to carry water from springs and mountain streams to cities. Often these were underground conduits, but also they were constructed as large, arched structures made of stone and mortar that gradually sloped downward. The remains of an impressive Roman aqueduct that transported water from the Carmel Mountains to the coast can still be seen in the ruins of Caesarea Maritima. The reference in Rev. 3:14–22 to the “lukewarm” church at Laodicea likely alludes to the tepid water that arrived via aqueduct from springs five miles south of the city.

A major city in ancient Syria (Aram) and the capital of modern Syria. Damascus is located fifty miles inland from the Mediterranean, east of the Anti-Lebanon mountains, northeast of Mount Hermon, and west of the Syrian Desert. It sits on a well-watered plateau 2,200 feet above sea level, near the Ghouta oasis and the Barada River (biblical Abana). Strategically located on main trade routes from Egypt, Arabia, and Mesopotamia, Damascus is considered one of the oldest continuously occupied cities in the Near East. Because the site of the ancient city lies under the modern “Old City,” few archaeological excavations have been carried out, and no remains prior to the Roman period have been found. However, some Roman columns still stand along Straight Street (likely the same street mentioned in Acts 9:11), and remains of a Roman arch and gateway, a temple of Jupiter Damascenus, and several Greek inscriptions have been identified.

Although no information about ancient Damascus has yet been provided by archaeological excavations, much can be learned about the city from its mention in historical sources from neighboring cultures. Probably the earliest reference to Damascus is in a list of cities whose kings were defeated by Thutmose III at Megiddo (c. 1482 BC). Damascus is also mentioned in the Amarna letters as a town of the land of Upi, in connection with a Hittite attempt to gain control of the area from Egyptian domination (fourteenth century BC). The city is first mentioned in the Bible when Abraham’s pursuit of four kings who kidnapped Lot took him past Damascus to Hobah (Gen. 14:15). Damascus is also noted as the hometown of Abraham’s servant Eliezer (15:2).

Old Testament Narrative and Prophetic Literature

During the Iron Age (1200–586 BC), Damascus became a prominent Aramean city-state that played a significant role in the political events of Israel’s united and divided monarchies, and in this light it receives frequent mention in OT narrative and prophetic literature.

Narrative literature. During the united monarchy, David incorporated Damascus into his kingdom after the Arameans from the city unsuccessfully came to the aid of Hadadezer of Zobah and were defeated by David in battle (2 Sam. 8:5–6; 1 Chron. 18:5–6). Later, Solomon’s adversary Rezon son of Eliada, who had served under Hadadezer of Zobah, gathered a band of rebels, went to Damascus, and took control of the city (1 Kings 11:23–25).

After the division of the kingdom around 928 BC, little is known of Damascus until the biblical report that Asa of Judah appealed to Ben-Hadad I in Damascus for help in his war against Baasha of Israel. When Asa sent gifts of silver and gold and proposed a treaty, Ben-Hadad I (also known as Bir-Hadad I) complied with Asa’s request and sent his army to attack Israel’s northern cities (1 Kings 15:16–22; 2 Chron. 16:2).

In 853 BC the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III tried to invade Syria and was met north of Damascus at Qarqar by a coalition of twelve states led by Ben-Hadad II of Damascus (also known as Hadadezer or Adad-idri). Although Shalmaneser’s Monolith Inscription reports that he was victorious, the fact that he was unable to advance farther into Syria and that he returned immediately homeward likely indicates that the coalition successfully repelled him. According to the Monolith Inscription, Ahab of Israel was a member of this coalition.

Additional contacts between Ahab and Ben-Hadad II of Damascus are recounted in 1 Kings 20; 22. Chapter 20 notes that Ben-Hadad II gathered a coalition of thirty-two kings to besiege Samaria, but Ahab was able to defeat them. A second encounter left Ben-Hadad II requesting Ahab’s mercy, offering to restore previously captured Israelite towns and to give Ahab access to Damascus. A third engagement pitted Ahab of Israel and Jehoshaphat of Judah against the Arameans at Ramoth Gilead and resulted in Ahab’s death. However, some scholars identify the Ben-Hadad referred to in these chapters (as well as in 2 Kings 5–7) as Ben-Hadad III and place these events during the time of Jehoash of Israel rather than during Ahab’s reign.

During and after Ahab’s reign, both Elijah and Elisha became involved in the political affairs of Damascus. Elijah traveled to Damascus after his encounter with God at Horeb in order to anoint Hazael as future king of Aram (1 Kings 19:15). Later, Ben-Hadad II, informed of Elisha’s presence in Damascus, sent his servant Hazael to inquire whether he would recover from an illness. However, Elisha used the opportunity to reluctantly predict Hazael’s rise to kingship in Aram (2 Kings 8:7–15).

When he did rule as king (c. 842–806 BC), Hazael successfully expanded his empire into the territories of Israel and Judah during the reigns of Joram (2 Kings 8:28–29; 9:14–15), Jehu (10:32–33), and Jehoahaz of Israel (13:1–9), as well as Joash of Judah, who paid tribute to Damascus (12:17–18; cf. 2 Chron. 24:23).

After Hazael’s death the kingdom of Aram, ruled by his son Ben-Hadad III (also known as Bir-Hadad), no longer remained the dominant power of the region. Jehoash of Israel was able to recapture Israelite territory (2 Kings 13:25), and the Assyrian king Adad-nirari III besieged Damascus and made the king pay tribute (c. 796 BC). Aram’s weakened state was also apparent during the reign of Jeroboam II of Israel, who expanded Israel’s border back to Damascus (2 Kings 14:28).

Rezin, Aram’s last king (c. 740–732 BC), formed a coalition that included Pekah of Israel to fight Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria. When Rezin and Pekah attacked Ahaz of Judah and tried to replace him with a procoalition puppet named “Tabeel” (Isa. 7:6), Ahaz appealed to Assyria for help by sending gifts. Tiglath-pileser III complied with Ahaz’s requests and attacked Damascus, deporting its inhabitants, putting Rezin to death, and annexing Aram into the Assyrian Empire (2 Kings 16:5–9). Although Damascus, with several surrounding cities, did attempt to rebel against Assyria in 720 BC, Sargon II was able to defeat them. From that point on, Damascus remained under control of the Assyrians, then the Babylonians, and then served as a provincial capital under the Persians.

Prophetic literature. In light of the significant involvement of Damascus in international affairs during the period of the divided monarchies, it is not surprising to find frequent mention of the city in the prophetic literature. Amos, for example, proclaims judgment against the rulers of Damascus for their brutality and predicts exile for the city’s inhabitants in the first of his oracles against the nations (Amos 1:3–5). Isaiah also speaks of Damascus, assuring Ahaz that the plot by Rezin and Pekah to overthrow Jerusalem would not be successful, and that Damascus would soon be conquered by Assyria (Isa. 7–8; 17:1–3). Jeremiah’s oracle against Damascus may also refer to these events, since what Jeremiah describes is not known to have taken place during his lifetime (Jer. 49:23–27). Ezekiel notes, in passing, Damascus as a customer of the wares of Tyre and in connection with the description of Israel’s future boundaries (Ezek. 27:18; 47:16–18; 48:1). Finally, Zechariah includes Damascus in his oracle concerning some of the city-states in Syria-Palestine (Zech. 9:1).

Hellenistic Period and New Testament

During the Hellenistic period (322–37 BC), Damascus was conquered by Parmenio, a general under Alexander the Great, and then it came under the rule of Seleucus I Nicator. Control over the city fluctuated during the conflicts between the Seleucids and the Ptolemies, and in 63 BC General Pompey annexed the area for Rome, although he allowed the Nabateans to control the city.

Damascus is notable in the NT as the city to which Paul (then Saul) was traveling to persecute Christians when he encountered the risen Christ. After his conversion Paul stayed in Damascus until he had to escape the city by night because Jews were plotting to kill him (Acts 9:1–27; 22:3–16; 26:12–23; 2 Cor. 11:32–33). Paul also visited Damascus after his journey to Arabia (Gal. 1:17).

The KJV and the NRSV use the antiquated English word “fuller” where the NIV uses “washerman, launderer” (2 Kings 18:17; Isa. 7:3; 36:2; Mal. 3:2). The term is derived from an equally antiquated transitive verb, “to full,” which refers to felting wool together by beating it. Other translations make a distinction between the process of “washing” designated by one form of this Hebrew verb and the process of “fulling,” which only appears as a Hebrew noun. See also Washerman’s Field.

The road to the Washerman’s Field (NIV: “Launderer’s Field” in Isa. 7:3; 36:2) locates where Ahaz was inspecting Jerusalem’s water supply in preparation for an attack by Syria and Israel (Isa. 7:3), and where the Assyrian commander stood (2 Kings 18:17; Isa. 36:2). Jerusalem was supplied by a series of pools connected by channels. The launderer’s occupation of cleaning cloth required much water (cf. Mal. 3:2). The field was located outside the city, at its southern end.

A number of Hebrew and Greek words are used in the Bible to refer to hair and hairstyles. Most of the references are to human hair (e.g., Lev. 19:27), but occasionally animal hair is intended (Matt. 3:4; Rev. 6:12). God numbers the hairs of our head (Matt. 10:30); not one hair will perish if God is the protector (Isa. 46:4; Luke 21:18).

Hairstyles varied throughout the ancient Near East according to place and period. For example, the Egyptians shaved their heads, but Semitic men and women generally wore their hair long and admired black hair (2 Sam. 14:26; see also Song 5:11, where hair is described as wavy). Ancient Near Eastern tomb paintings and reliefs depict Semitic men with thick black hair and pointed beards and women with their long, black hair tied and hanging down the back. As a sign of age, white hair was regarded with great respect (Lev. 19:32; Prov. 16:31). Much later, at the time of the apostle Paul, long hair on men was considered shameful (1 Cor. 11:14), while for women long hair was the ideal (11:15).

Beards and hair were dressed, adorned, anointed with oil, perfumed, and curled (2 Kings 9:30; Eccles. 9:8; Isa. 3:18–24; Matt. 26:7). The NT, however, advises moderation in hairstyles (1 Tim. 2:9; 1 Pet. 3:3–6). Barbers used razors to cut hair and beards (Ezek. 5:1; cf. Isa. 7:20). To shave or pluck out another person’s hair was a grave insult (2 Sam. 10:4–5; Isa. 50:6). It was also uncommon to untie a woman’s hair in public (Num. 5:18; cf. Luke 7:38).

Cutting or shaving hair often had social or religious significance. During times of mourning and affliction, hair on the head and beard was shaved or plucked out (Ezra 9:3; Isa. 15:2; Jer. 16:6). Sometimes the beard was left untrimmed (2 Sam. 19:24). A Nazirite was not to cut his hair during the days of his vow (Num. 6:5). At the conclusion of the vow, his hair was offered with a sacrifice (Num. 6:18). Offering hair for the dead and cutting the corners of the beard was prohibited in the law (Deut. 14:1; Lev. 19:27). Priests were not to shave their heads or allow their hair to grow long (Lev. 21:5; Ezek. 44:20). Prophets may have marked themselves by a partial shaving of the head (1 Kings 20:35–43; 2 Kings 2:23).

A young cow, typically one that has not produced offspring. Heifers assisted people by plowing (Deut. 21:3) and producing milk, which could be curdled into cheese (Isa. 7:21). Samson compares the animal allegorically to his wife (Judg. 14:18). Jeremiah does the same with Egypt, which will be tormented by a Babylonian gadfly (Jer. 46:20). Hosea compares Israel to a stubborn heifer (Hos. 4:16). The lives of heifers were required for special sacrifices (Gen. 15:9; 1 Sam. 16:1–2). Their sacrifice also purged bloodguilt from the land as a consequence of murder when the culprit was unknown (Deut. 21:1–8). Through an elaborate ritual, the ashes of a red heifer were mixed with water for purification from uncleanness caused by coming into contact with a corpse (Num. 19:1–22; cf. Heb. 9:13).

The Hebrew verb sharaq, sometimes translated as “to hiss,” can also be translated as “to whistle” and has two distinct uses in Scripture. It can refer to summoning, as in when a shepherd summons sheep (Judg. 5:16), God summons his people (Isa. 5:26; Zech. 10:8), or God summons an enemy as a means of judgment against his people (Isa. 7:18). The word also and more commonly refers to an expression of astonishment or derision, most often upon God’s judgment (Jer. 49:17; 50:13; Lam. 2:15; Ezek. 27:36; Mic. 6:16; Zeph. 2:15). In 1 Kings 9:8 God declares that the temple will be destroyed if his people disobey, and this word is used to anticipate the shock that people will feel. Jeremiah similarly predicted the shock of people who will witness the destruction of Jerusalem (Jer. 19:8).

A farming instrument with a flat blade and long handle, used to weed, loosen the earth, and turn soil for planting (Isa. 7:25).

Hunting for food is a postdiluvian activity. In the original creation, humankind was allowed to eat only of plant life (Gen. 1:29); it was only with the re-creation of the earth that humans were explicitly permitted to eat animals: “Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything” (9:3). Therefore, it may be concluded that hunting as a means of survival had no significance for prediluvian humanity.

Nimrod was “a mighty hunter before the Lord; that is why it is said, ‘Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the Lord’ ” (Gen. 10:9). However, for many ancient interpreters, the proverbial saying was viewed with suspicion and was interpreted negatively as opposition against God (Philo, QG 2.82; L.A.B. 4:7; 6:13; Josephus, Ant. 1.113–14; Tg. Neof. 10:9; Frg. Tg. 10:9; Augustine, Civ. 16.4; Jerome, Qu. hebr. Gen. 10.18). Another memorable hunter is Esau, “a skillful hunter, a man of the open country” (Gen. 25:27). Before Esau could receive a blessing, his father requested that he go hunt game for him; however, the old and blind Isaac was tricked into blessing the wrong son (27:1–40).

In ancient times, hunting was not an activity limited to providing food or acquiring other resources such as materials for clothing. There is evidence of hunting as a royal sport. The Assyrian kings were famous hunters of lions, wild bulls, elephants, and other animals. By the seventh century BC, Assyrian kings hunted in special game reserves. For the Assyrians, the killing of wild beasts such as lions symbolized the duty of the king as a guardian of civilization. Royal hunting does not appear to have been a practice in Israel, although such a possibility may not be completely ruled out. The young David’s encounter with lion and bear is cited to some extent for self-exaltation purposes and even more so to portray him as a fearless shepherd worthy of shepherding Israel (1 Sam. 17:34–37).

Hunters used various methods to catch or kill their prey: weapons such as quiver, bow, spear, sling, and club (Gen. 27:3; cf. Isa. 7:24), pits and various snares and gins (Pss. 35:7; 91:3; 2 Sam. 23:20; Isa. 24:17; Jer. 48:43; Amos 3:5). Bird hunting was also a common practice, and snares often were used to make a catch (Pss. 91:3; 124:7; Prov. 1:17; 6:5; Eccles. 9:12; Amos 3:5).

A transliteration of the Hebrew phrase ’immanu ’el, which means “God is with us.” This name is a reminder of God’s presence, and although the name “Immanuel” appears in the Bible only a few times (Isa. 7:14; 8:8; Matt. 1:23; cf. Isa. 8:10), the theme of God’s presence is one of the most prevalent in Scripture.

In Isa. 7 the prophet Isaiah tells King Ahaz not to fear the two kings who threaten him, but to trust in God. In fact, Isaiah proclaims, God will give a sign to Ahaz. An unnamed “virgin” (Heb. ’almah, which normally means “young, unmarried woman”) will conceive and give birth to a child, whose name will be “Immanuel” (Isa. 7:14). Interestingly, there is no mention of a father. Before this child grows old enough to know right from wrong, Isaiah continues, God will destroy both of the kings who threaten Ahaz (7:15–16). At this point, the sign of Immanuel appears to refer to a child born during the time of Ahaz as a sign to him of God’s power and ability to deliver.

Yet, this promised child seems to be rather unusual. In Isa. 8:8 God declares that Immanuel owns all the land of Judah, indicating that he is no mere unknown or obscure child. Furthermore, in 8:10 victory is declared for Judah because “God is with us [’immanu ’el].” The use of this phrase is a wordplay on the name “Immanuel,” suggesting that the sign of a child named “Immanuel” may point to something beyond just a child in Ahaz’s time.

In the LXX, the word used for the young, unmarried woman in Isa. 7:14, parthenos, explicitly meant “virgin.” Using this Greek word, Matthew declares that the virgin birth of Jesus Christ was a fulfillment of Isa. 7:14 (Matt. 1:23). Thus, it appears that Isa. 7:14 was fulfilled twice, or at least that the prophecy contained a dual aspect. It was fulfilled first in a minimal way during the reign of Ahaz and then ultimately by the virgin birth of Jesus.

Matthew, of course, is saying much more than that Jesus fulfills the prophecy of Isa. 7:14: Jesus embodies the presence of God. The presence of God is a major theological theme running throughout the Bible. Matthew opens his Gospel with the proclamation that Jesus fulfills Isaiah’s prophecy of Immanuel, “God is with us” (1:23), and he closes with Jesus’ statement “I am with you always” (28:20), a promise of Jesus Christ’s empowering presence. The Gospel of John opens with the same theme, stating, “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us” (1:14). Frequently in the NT, Jesus is connected to the powerful presence of God. At the climactic end of the biblical story the focus is once again on presence, as the “Lord God Almighty and the Lamb” once again dwell with God’s people in the garden (Rev. 21–22), the ultimate example of “God is with us.”

An eighth-century BC prophet who prophesied during the period just before and after the fall of the northern kingdom of Israel to the Assyrians in 722 BC. Isaiah lived in Judah, specifically in Jerusalem.

Isaiah began his prophetic work in the year that King Uzziah died, approximately 733 BC (Isa. 6:1). His ministry continued through the reigns of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. The latter began his rule in 727 BC and ended in 698 BC, but since Isaiah was with him during the Assyrian incursion of 701 BC (see below), the prophet was active until late in his reign. He may have lived into the reign of Hezekiah’s wicked son Manasseh. Tradition states that he died as a martyr, being sawn in half.

Isaiah was married to a prophetess and had at least two sons (Isa. 7:3; 8:3). His sons had names with symbolic import. The first was “Shear-Jashub,” meaning “a remnant will return”; the second was “Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz,” meaning “quick to the plunder, swift to the spoil.”

Apart from such glimpses, readers do not learn as much about Isaiah the person as they do about Jeremiah or even Ezekiel. But his prophecies are clearly connected to the big events of his day. Many of his prophecies have the Syro-Ephraimite war as their background. The king of Syria, Rezin, and the king of Israel, Pekah, tried to enlist the help of the king of Judah, Ahaz, against the encroachment of the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III in the middle of the eighth century BC. Ahaz refused, and Isaiah supported that decision. However, Ahaz did not really trust God in this matter, for against the wishes of Isaiah he wrote to Tiglath-pileser asking for help against Rezin and Pekah, since they had decided to try to replace him with a more amenable person. As a result of his appeal, Tiglath-pileser took Syria, and his successors eventually took the northern kingdom in 722 BC. Ahaz and the kings of Judah who followed him were forced to become vassals.

In 701 BC the current Assyrian king, Sennacherib, moved militarily against Judah to incorporate it into his empire. Isaiah again was at the side of the Judean king, now Hezekiah, encouraging him to depend on God and not submit. In contrast to Ahaz, Hezekiah did not submit, and God delivered him from the Assyrians.

These events are the background and the situations into which Isaiah spoke, but his prophetic vision extended far beyond his lifetime. He saw not only the future defeat of Judah and Jerusalem at the hands of the Babylonians but also their restoration (see esp. Isa. 40–66). The NT cites Isaiah more frequently than any other OT book, finding the ultimate fulfillment of many of his oracles in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

(1) One of the four sons of Issachar (Gen. 46:13; Num. 26:24; 1 Chron. 7:1). The inclusion of the relatively unknown Jashub among Jacob’s extended family together with many other near-forgotten names indicates, among other things, the fulfilling of God’s promise of descendants to Abraham (Gen. 15:5). (2) One of the returned exiles who, as a result of the reforms introduced by Ezra, was listed as having taken a foreign wife (Ezra 10:29). (3) A partial name of one of Isaiah’s sons (Isa. 7:3). See also Shear-Jashub.

A staple of the Hebrew diet, milk is one of the things considered essential for life by Jesus ben Sira, a Jewish writer of the Second Temple period (Sir. 39:26). In the ancient Near East humans consumed the milk not just from cows but also from goats, sheep, and even camels (Gen. 32:15; Deut. 32:14; Isa. 7:21–22). Since there was no process of pasteurization or refrigeration, milk often was processed to create curds, cheese, butter, or slightly soured and fermented milk. The souring process was done inside an animal skin used to hold the liquid until it was needed (Judg. 4:19).

With the prominent place that milk held in the life of the people of Israel, it is no surprise that it appears in the Bible in many contexts. The land of Canaan is frequently described as a land “flowing with milk and honey,” a metaphor for prosperity and a promise of abundant pasturelands (Exod. 3:8; Lev. 20:24; Num. 13:27; Deut. 6:3). Milk sometimes is associated with honey or wine, and it may have been consumed in such combinations (Gen. 49:12; Isa. 55:1; Joel 3:18). Milk (like wine and honey) is a heavy liquid that leaves a pleasant aftertaste, and it may suggest the pleasures of kissing in Song of Songs (see, e.g., Song 4:11). The OT law proclaims, “Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk” (Exod. 23:19; Deut. 14:21). This mysterious prohibition probably refers to a Canaanite custom in which a young goat was cooked in its mother’s milk as part of a pagan religious ritual. This prohibition was later interpreted by Jewish scholars to indicate a total prohibition on eating meat and dairy products together in the same meal, which is a major aspect of kosher regulations. In the NT, milk is used metaphorically for nourishing spiritual teaching (1 Pet. 2:2). Paul reworks this image to indicate that believers, like growing infants, must move beyond the mere milk of basic principles to mature spiritual instruction (1 Cor. 3:2; cf. Heb. 5:12–13).

The names of God given in the Bible are an important means of revelation about his character and works. The names come from three sources: God himself, those who encounter him in the biblical record, and the biblical writers. This article is concerned mainly with the names that occur in the OT, though the NT will be referenced when helpful.

In the Bible the meaning of names is often significant and points to the character of the person so named. As might be expected, this is especially true for God. The names that he gives to himself always are a form of revelation; the names that humans give to God often are a form of testimony.

Yahweh: The Lord

Pronunciation. Unquestionably, for OT revelation the most important name is “(the) Lord.” In English Bibles this represents the name declared by God to Moses at the burning bush (“I am who I am” [Exod. 3:13–15]) and the related term used elsewhere in the OT; in Hebrew this term consists of the four consonants YHWH and is therefore known as the Tetragrammaton (“four letters”). Hebrew does not count vowels as part of its alphabet; in biblical times one simply wrote the consonants of a word and the reader supplied the correct vowels by knowing the vocabulary, grammar, and context. However, to avoid violating the commandment in the Decalogue that prohibits the misuse of God’s name (Exod. 20:7; Deut. 5:11), the Jews stopped pronouncing it. Consequently, no one today knows its correct original pronunciation, but the best evidence available suggests “Yahweh,” which has become the conventional pronunciation (consider the Hebrew word “hallelujah,” which actually is “hallelu-Yah,” hence “praise the Lord”). In ancient Jewish tradition, “Adonai” (“my Lord”) was substituted for “Yahweh.” In fact, when Hebrew eventually developed a vowel notation system, instead of the vowels for “Yahweh,” the vowels for “Adonai” were indicated whenever YHWH appeared in the biblical text, as a reminder. Combining the consonants YHWH with the vowels of “Adonai” yields something like “Yehowah,” which is the origin of the familiar (but mistaken and nonexistent) “Jehovah.” English Bibles typically use “Lord” (small capital letters) for “Yahweh,” and “Lord” (regular letters) for “Adonai,” which distinguishes the two.

Meaning. More vital than the matter of the pronunciation of YHWH is the question of its meaning. There seem to be two main opinions. One sees YHWH as denoting eternal self-existence, partly because it is suggested by the grammar of Exod. 3:14 (the words “I am” use a form of the Hebrew verb that suggests being without beginning or end) and partly because that is the meaning Jesus apparently ascribes to it in John 8:58. The other opinion, suggested by usage, is that YHWH indicates dynamic, active, divine presence: God’s being present in a special way to act on someone’s behalf (e.g., Gen. 26:28; 39:2–3; Josh. 6:27; 1 Sam. 18:12–14). This idea also appears in the episode of the burning bush (Exod. 3:12): when Moses protests his inadequacy to confront Pharaoh, God assures him of his presence, a reality noted with other prophets (1 Sam. 3:19; Jer. 1:8).

Perhaps the best points of reference for understanding the meaning of YHWH are God’s own proclamations. In addition to Exod. 3:13–15, at least two other passages in Exodus give God’s commentary (as it were) about the meaning of his name. An important one is Exod. 34:5–7. A key passage in the theology proper of ancient Israel, its themes echo in later OT Scripture (Num. 14:18–19; Ps. 103:7–12; Jon. 4:2). What is noteworthy about the texts cited is that all of them say something remarkable about the grace of God. This fits, for the revelation of Exod. 34:5–7 is given in the context of covenant renewal after the incident of the golden calf. Moses invokes God’s name in the Numbers text to avoid catastrophic judgment when the Israelites refuse to enter the promised land. The psalm text picks up this theme and connects it with God’s revelation of his ways to the chosen people. Jonah, remarkably, affirms that the same grace extends even toward a wicked Gentile city such as Nineveh.

Another such passage is Exod. 6:2–8. Here God reaffirms his redemptive purpose for captive Israel, despite the fact that Moses’ first encounter with Pharaoh has not gone well. God assures the prophet that he has remembered his covenant with the patriarchs, whom he says did not know him as “Yahweh,” which probably means that the patriarchs did not experience him in the way or character that their descendants would in the exodus event (though it is possible to translate the Hebrew here as a rhetorical question with an affirmative idea: “And indeed, by my name Yahweh did I not make myself known to them?”). God then proceeds to outline the redemptive experience in its fullness: deliverance from bondage, reception into a covenant relationship, and possession of the land promised to their ancestors (vv. 6–8). The statement is bracketed with this declaration: “I am the Lord” (vv. 2, 8). One stated purpose of this redemptive work is that Israel might come to understand this (v. 7). This is important to note because a central theme of Exodus as a book is the identity of the God of Israel. This concern prompts Moses to ask for God’s name at the burning bush (3:13), and this contempt for the God of the enslaved Hebrews causes Pharaoh to be dismissive at his first meeting with Moses and Aaron (5:2). Moses asks with the concern of a seeker and receives one of the most profound declarations of God’s identity in the Bible. Pharaoh asks with the contempt of a scorner and receives one of the most powerful displays of God’s identity in the Bible (the plagues). The contrast is both striking and instructive. The meaning of God’s name, then, is revealed in works as well as words, and his purpose is that not just his people but all peoples may come to understand who he is. Yet another majestic statement in the book of Exodus (9:13–16) makes this abundantly clear.

Based on this pattern of usage, the name “Yahweh” seems to signify especially the active presence of God to bless, deliver, or otherwise aid his people. Where this presence is absent, there is no success, victory, protection, or peace (Num. 14:39–45; Josh. 7:10–12; Judg. 16:20; 1 Sam. 16:13–14). The message that God not only is but also is present to save and deliver may well be the most important truth communicated in the OT, and it is only natural to see its ultimate embodiment in the person and work of Christ (Isa. 7:14; cf. Matt. 1:21–23).

Name used in combination. The name “Yahweh” also is used in combination with other terms. After God grants a military victory to Israel over the Amalekites, Moses names a commemorative altar “Yahweh Nissi,” meaning “the Lord is my Banner” (Exod. 17:15). In Ezekiel’s temple vision Jerusalem is called “Yahweh Shammah,” meaning “the Lord is there” (Ezek. 48:35). A familiar expression is “the Lord of hosts,” which is generally comparable to the expression “commander in chief” used in American culture (cf. 1 Kings 22:19–23).

Elohim

This is the first term for God encountered in the Bible, right in the opening verse. It is a more generic term, denoting deity in contrast to humans or angels. “Elohim” is a plural form; the singular terms “El” and “Eloah” are used occasionally, particularly in poetic texts. “El” is a common term in the biblical world; in fact, it is the name for the father of Baal in the Canaanite religion. This may explain why the Bible commonly uses the plural form, to distinguish the one true God, the God of Israel, from his pagan rivals. Others explain the plural form as a “plural of majesty” or “plural of intensity,” though it is uncertain just what this would mean. Some see the foundation for NT revelation of the Trinity (Gen. 1:26–27; 11:6–7; cf. John 17:20–22), but this is unlikely. The plural form also can serve simply as a common noun, referring to pagan deities (Exod. 12:12), angels (Ps. 97:7, arguably), or even human authorities (Exod. 22:28, possibly).

“El” also occurs in combination with other descriptive terms. The best known is “El Shaddai,” meaning “God Almighty” (Gen. 17:1). The precise meaning of “Shaddai” is uncertain, but it seems to have the notion of “great/powerful one.” The distressed Hagar, caught, comforted, and counseled by the mysterious personage at a well, calls God “El Roi,” which means “the God who sees me” (Gen. 16:13). One of the most exalted expressions to describe God is “El Elyon,” meaning “God Most High.” This title seems to have particular reference to God as the owner and master of creation (Gen. 14:18–20).

Adonai

As noted above, this common word meaning simply “(my) lord/master” is used regularly in place of the personal name of God revealed to Moses in Exod. 3:14. And in the OT of most English Bibles this is indicated by printing “Lord” as opposed to “Lord” (using small capital letters). However, “Adonai” is used of God in some noteworthy instances, such as Isaiah’s lofty vision of God exalted in Isa. 6 and the prophecy of Immanuel in Isa. 7:14. In time, this became the preferred term for referring to God, and the LXX reflected this by using the Greek word kyrios (“lord”) for Yahweh. This makes the ease with which NT writers transfer the use of the term to Jesus (e.g., 1 Cor. 12:3) a strong indication of their Christology.

The names of God given in the Bible are an important means of revelation about his character and works. The names come from three sources: God himself, those who encounter him in the biblical record, and the biblical writers. This article is concerned mainly with the names that occur in the OT, though the NT will be referenced when helpful.

In the Bible the meaning of names is often significant and points to the character of the person so named. As might be expected, this is especially true for God. The names that he gives to himself always are a form of revelation; the names that humans give to God often are a form of testimony.

Yahweh: The Lord

Pronunciation. Unquestionably, for OT revelation the most important name is “(the) Lord.” In English Bibles this represents the name declared by God to Moses at the burning bush (“I am who I am” [Exod. 3:13–15]) and the related term used elsewhere in the OT; in Hebrew this term consists of the four consonants YHWH and is therefore known as the Tetragrammaton (“four letters”). Hebrew does not count vowels as part of its alphabet; in biblical times one simply wrote the consonants of a word and the reader supplied the correct vowels by knowing the vocabulary, grammar, and context. However, to avoid violating the commandment in the Decalogue that prohibits the misuse of God’s name (Exod. 20:7; Deut. 5:11), the Jews stopped pronouncing it. Consequently, no one today knows its correct original pronunciation, but the best evidence available suggests “Yahweh,” which has become the conventional pronunciation (consider the Hebrew word “hallelujah,” which actually is “hallelu-Yah,” hence “praise the Lord”). In ancient Jewish tradition, “Adonai” (“my Lord”) was substituted for “Yahweh.” In fact, when Hebrew eventually developed a vowel notation system, instead of the vowels for “Yahweh,” the vowels for “Adonai” were indicated whenever YHWH appeared in the biblical text, as a reminder. Combining the consonants YHWH with the vowels of “Adonai” yields something like “Yehowah,” which is the origin of the familiar (but mistaken and nonexistent) “Jehovah.” English Bibles typically use “Lord” (small capital letters) for “Yahweh,” and “Lord” (regular letters) for “Adonai,” which distinguishes the two.

Meaning. More vital than the matter of the pronunciation of YHWH is the question of its meaning. There seem to be two main opinions. One sees YHWH as denoting eternal self-existence, partly because it is suggested by the grammar of Exod. 3:14 (the words “I am” use a form of the Hebrew verb that suggests being without beginning or end) and partly because that is the meaning Jesus apparently ascribes to it in John 8:58. The other opinion, suggested by usage, is that YHWH indicates dynamic, active, divine presence: God’s being present in a special way to act on someone’s behalf (e.g., Gen. 26:28; 39:2–3; Josh. 6:27; 1 Sam. 18:12–14). This idea also appears in the episode of the burning bush (Exod. 3:12): when Moses protests his inadequacy to confront Pharaoh, God assures him of his presence, a reality noted with other prophets (1 Sam. 3:19; Jer. 1:8).

Perhaps the best points of reference for understanding the meaning of YHWH are God’s own proclamations. In addition to Exod. 3:13–15, at least two other passages in Exodus give God’s commentary (as it were) about the meaning of his name. An important one is Exod. 34:5–7. A key passage in the theology proper of ancient Israel, its themes echo in later OT Scripture (Num. 14:18–19; Ps. 103:7–12; Jon. 4:2). What is noteworthy about the texts cited is that all of them say something remarkable about the grace of God. This fits, for the revelation of Exod. 34:5–7 is given in the context of covenant renewal after the incident of the golden calf. Moses invokes God’s name in the Numbers text to avoid catastrophic judgment when the Israelites refuse to enter the promised land. The psalm text picks up this theme and connects it with God’s revelation of his ways to the chosen people. Jonah, remarkably, affirms that the same grace extends even toward a wicked Gentile city such as Nineveh.

Another such passage is Exod. 6:2–8. Here God reaffirms his redemptive purpose for captive Israel, despite the fact that Moses’ first encounter with Pharaoh has not gone well. God assures the prophet that he has remembered his covenant with the patriarchs, whom he says did not know him as “Yahweh,” which probably means that the patriarchs did not experience him in the way or character that their descendants would in the exodus event (though it is possible to translate the Hebrew here as a rhetorical question with an affirmative idea: “And indeed, by my name Yahweh did I not make myself known to them?”). God then proceeds to outline the redemptive experience in its fullness: deliverance from bondage, reception into a covenant relationship, and possession of the land promised to their ancestors (vv. 6–8). The statement is bracketed with this declaration: “I am the Lord” (vv. 2, 8). One stated purpose of this redemptive work is that Israel might come to understand this (v. 7). This is important to note because a central theme of Exodus as a book is the identity of the God of Israel. This concern prompts Moses to ask for God’s name at the burning bush (3:13), and this contempt for the God of the enslaved Hebrews causes Pharaoh to be dismissive at his first meeting with Moses and Aaron (5:2). Moses asks with the concern of a seeker and receives one of the most profound declarations of God’s identity in the Bible. Pharaoh asks with the contempt of a scorner and receives one of the most powerful displays of God’s identity in the Bible (the plagues). The contrast is both striking and instructive. The meaning of God’s name, then, is revealed in works as well as words, and his purpose is that not just his people but all peoples may come to understand who he is. Yet another majestic statement in the book of Exodus (9:13–16) makes this abundantly clear.

Based on this pattern of usage, the name “Yahweh” seems to signify especially the active presence of God to bless, deliver, or otherwise aid his people. Where this presence is absent, there is no success, victory, protection, or peace (Num. 14:39–45; Josh. 7:10–12; Judg. 16:20; 1 Sam. 16:13–14). The message that God not only is but also is present to save and deliver may well be the most important truth communicated in the OT, and it is only natural to see its ultimate embodiment in the person and work of Christ (Isa. 7:14; cf. Matt. 1:21–23).

Name used in combination. The name “Yahweh” also is used in combination with other terms. After God grants a military victory to Israel over the Amalekites, Moses names a commemorative altar “Yahweh Nissi,” meaning “the Lord is my Banner” (Exod. 17:15). In Ezekiel’s temple vision Jerusalem is called “Yahweh Shammah,” meaning “the Lord is there” (Ezek. 48:35). A familiar expression is “the Lord of hosts,” which is generally comparable to the expression “commander in chief” used in American culture (cf. 1 Kings 22:19–23).

Elohim

This is the first term for God encountered in the Bible, right in the opening verse. It is a more generic term, denoting deity in contrast to humans or angels. “Elohim” is a plural form; the singular terms “El” and “Eloah” are used occasionally, particularly in poetic texts. “El” is a common term in the biblical world; in fact, it is the name for the father of Baal in the Canaanite religion. This may explain why the Bible commonly uses the plural form, to distinguish the one true God, the God of Israel, from his pagan rivals. Others explain the plural form as a “plural of majesty” or “plural of intensity,” though it is uncertain just what this would mean. Some see the foundation for NT revelation of the Trinity (Gen. 1:26–27; 11:6–7; cf. John 17:20–22), but this is unlikely. The plural form also can serve simply as a common noun, referring to pagan deities (Exod. 12:12), angels (Ps. 97:7, arguably), or even human authorities (Exod. 22:28, possibly).

“El” also occurs in combination with other descriptive terms. The best known is “El Shaddai,” meaning “God Almighty” (Gen. 17:1). The precise meaning of “Shaddai” is uncertain, but it seems to have the notion of “great/powerful one.” The distressed Hagar, caught, comforted, and counseled by the mysterious personage at a well, calls God “El Roi,” which means “the God who sees me” (Gen. 16:13). One of the most exalted expressions to describe God is “El Elyon,” meaning “God Most High.” This title seems to have particular reference to God as the owner and master of creation (Gen. 14:18–20).

Adonai

As noted above, this common word meaning simply “(my) lord/master” is used regularly in place of the personal name of God revealed to Moses in Exod. 3:14. And in the OT of most English Bibles this is indicated by printing “Lord” as opposed to “Lord” (using small capital letters). However, “Adonai” is used of God in some noteworthy instances, such as Isaiah’s lofty vision of God exalted in Isa. 6 and the prophecy of Immanuel in Isa. 7:14. In time, this became the preferred term for referring to God, and the LXX reflected this by using the Greek word kyrios (“lord”) for Yahweh. This makes the ease with which NT writers transfer the use of the term to Jesus (e.g., 1 Cor. 12:3) a strong indication of their Christology.

Patience is a moral attribute that God possesses and that humans may possess. One who has patience allows time to pass while maintaining a positive disposition, often in the face of suffering (Hab. 3:16; 2 Tim. 3:10–11; James 5:10), as the KJV translation “longsuffering” implies (cf. Prov. 14:29 NASB: “slow to anger”). The Scriptures universally speak of patience as an admirable quality and associate patience with other virtues, such as inner peace (Ps. 37:7), wisdom (Prov. 19:11), persuasiveness (Prov. 25:15), humility (Eccles. 7:8), and kindness (Rom. 2:4; 1 Cor. 13:4).

Numerous passages praise God’s patience. Humans try (Isa. 7:13) and show contempt for (Rom. 2:4) God’s patience, sometimes by refusing to be patient with others even though they themselves have received mercy from God (Matt. 18:23–35). Nonetheless, God displays his patience by granting them eternal life through faith in Christ (1 Tim. 1:16). In fact, God has patiently delayed destroying the world because he is compassionate and wants all to come to repentance (2 Pet. 3:9). God’s patience is evident even toward those who are destined for destruction (Rom. 9:22; 1 Pet. 3:20).

Just as God is patient, he imparts patience to the Christian through his Holy Spirit (Gal. 5:22). Like Abraham, the prophets, and any farmer, Christians are to exhibit patience, bearing with people both inside and outside the church (Eph. 4:2; 1 Thess. 5:14–15) as they wait eagerly for Christ’s return (Heb. 6:12–15; James 5:7–10). Those in Christian leadership must model patience and encourage others with patience (2 Tim. 3:10; 4:2).

The eighteenth king of Israel. He came to power by assassinating Pekahiah and was assassinated by Hoshea. Since he is assigned twenty years of rule (2 Kings 15:27), it is possible that he actually began ruling part of Israel as a rival to Menahem before consolidating his power by murdering Pekahiah, since his sole rule of Israel was from 735 to 733 BC.

After gaining power over all of Israel, Pekah formed a coalition with King Rezin of Syria, and they attacked Judah (2 Kings 15:37). Isaiah prophesied to Ahaz of Judah that the threat of Rezin and Pekah would be averted, and that both Syria and Israel (Ephraim) would be conquered by Assyria (Isa. 7). This was fulfilled when Tiglath-pileser III conquered Syria and invaded part of Israel (2 Kings 15:29).

In the OT, “pool” has three basic meanings: (1) a reservoir for containing and conserving water for a community; typically rectangular or round, and if constructed, either hewn from rock or created by damming a dry streambed; it may be fed by an aqueduct (2 Sam. 2:13; 4:12; 1 Kings 22:38; 2 Kings 3:16; 18:17; 20:20; Neh. 2:14; 3:15–16; Eccles. 2:6; Song 7:4; Isa. 7:3; 22:9, 11; 36:2; Nah. 2:8); (2) a naturally occurring pond, lake, lagoon, or marsh characterized by still or slow-moving water and the presence of reeds and other water plants (Exod. 7:19; 8:5; Pss. 107:35; 114:8; Isa. 14:23; 35:7; 41:18; 42:15); (3) a ditch filled with water (2 Kings 3:16). Elsewhere in the OT, some English translators use “pool” in rendering a metaphor or phrase that could be expressed another way (Deut. 8:7; Ps. 84:6; Song 5:12; Jer. 41:12).

In the NT, “pool” occurs only in John’s Gospel, where it refers to two constructed reservoirs or bathing places in Jerusalem: the Pool of Bethesda (once associated with an asclepeion, or pagan healing temple) and the rock-cut Pool of Siloam. Jesus performed healing miracles in both places (John 5:2, 7; 9:7, 11). See also Bethesda; King’s Pool; Siloam.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The son of Isaiah, whom God commanded the prophet to take with him to meet King Ahaz (Isa. 7:3). “Shear-Jashub” is a sign-name and message to the fearful king. It means “[only] a remnant will return.” There is ambiguity in “return,” which could indicate either a physical return or repentance. The name is an assurance to Ahaz that he has nothing to fear from the foreign alliance: only a remnant of the armies of Aram and Israel will return home. Or it could mean that only a remnant will turn to God in faith.

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

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

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

There are two Hebrew words that the NIV translates as “virgin.” The first, betulah, carries the more common English understanding of “virgin,” designating a woman who has not had sexual intercourse. The second, ’almah, generally refers to a young woman who has reached childbearing age and is marriageable. It does not, however, always imply that the woman has not had sexual intercourse or even that she is not married. In NT Greek the word parthenos is generally used of a woman who has not had sexual relations. The definition of “virgin” is theologically important because of statements in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke that Mary the mother of Jesus was a virgin (parthenos) when he was born (Matt. 1:23; Luke 1:27; cf. Matt. 1:18, 25; Luke 1:34). Further compounding the interpretive problem is Matthew’s use of Isa. 7:14 in Matt. 1:23, where he follows the LXX’s parthenos even though the Hebrew reads ’almah.

The traditional designation “virgin birth” refers to the supernatural conception of Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit, apart from sexual relations. Technically, one should speak of a “virginal conception,” since Jesus was virginally conceived but was born normally. The virgin “birth” is considered by some theologians to be the means by which the two natures of Jesus Christ are preserved: his humanity stems from the fact that he was born of the virgin Mary, while his deity proceeds from the reality that God was his father and he was conceived by the Holy Spirit. The later Apostles’ Creed formulates the matter this way: Jesus Christ “was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.” Here, three aspects of the virgin birth are discussed: (1) the virgin birth and Isa. 7:14; (2) the virgin birth in the NT; (3) the historicity of the virgin birth.

Isaiah 7:14. Isaiah 7:14 reads, “The virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel” (ESV). Two key issues are involved in Isaiah’s prophecy. First, should the Hebrew word ’almah be translated as “virgin” or as “young woman”? While the Hebrew term does not necessarily mean a virgin, but only a young woman of marriageable age, the Greek term parthenos used in the LXX of Isa. 7:14 and quoted in Matt. 1:23 has stronger connotations of virginity. Second, when was Isa. 7:14 fulfilled? Most likely the OT text was partially fulfilled in Isaiah’s day (with reference to King Ahaz’s unnamed son or to Isaiah’s son Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz [Isa. 8:1]) but found its ultimate fulfillment in Jesus, as Matt. 1:23 points out.

New Testament. The infancy narratives recorded in Matt. 1–2 and in Luke 1–2 provide the story line for Jesus’ virginal conception: (1) Mary was a virgin engaged to Joseph (Matt. 1:18; Luke 1:27, 34; 2:5); (2) she was found to be pregnant while still engaged to Joseph, a conception produced by the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:18, 20; Luke 1:35; cf. Matt. 1:18–25; Luke 1:34); (3) only after Jesus was born did Mary and Joseph have sexual relations (Matt. 1:24–25). Even though there is nothing in these narratives like the hypostatic union formulated in the later church creeds, it is clear that Matthew and Luke in some way associate Jesus’ deity and humanity with the virginal conception. Other NT texts are considered by some as possible references to the virgin birth. John 1:14 states that “the Word became flesh,” which certainly highlights Jesus’ two natures—deity and humanity—but does not thereby explicitly mention the virgin birth. Paul does something similar in Rom. 1:3 (“[God’s] Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David”), Gal. 4:4 (“God sent his Son, born of a woman”), and Phil. 2:6–11 (Jesus existed in the form of God but took on human likeness). Beyond these passages, there is little else regarding the virgin birth stated or alluded to in the NT.

Historicity. Two important considerations indicate that the virgin birth of Jesus was a historical event and not a mythic legend. First, the simplicity of the descriptions of the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke, when compared with the fantastic details found in contemporary accounts of Greco-Roman and Jewish supernatural births, bespeak the authenticity of the NT documents. For example, one can cite the stories of the supernatural birth of Alexander the Great in Greek sources and of Noah in extrabiblical Jewish sources. In addition, secondary details such as the mention of Anna’s father, Phanuel (Luke 2:36), add nothing significant to the account and thus appear to be matter-of-fact reporting by an eyewitness. Second, the commonalities between Matthew and Luke regarding the virgin birth of Jesus attest to its historicity.

In conclusion, while the NT does not contain extensive information concerning the virgin birth of Jesus, there is sufficient evidence to support its historicity.

The road to the Washerman’s Field (NIV: “Launderer’s Field” in Isa. 7:3; 36:2) locates where Ahaz was inspecting Jerusalem’s water supply in preparation for an attack by Syria and Israel (Isa. 7:3), and where the Assyrian commander stood (2 Kings 18:17; Isa. 36:2). Jerusalem was supplied by a series of pools connected by channels. The launderer’s occupation of cleaning cloth required much water (cf. Mal. 3:2). The field was located outside the city, at its southern end.

(1) Son of Jotham, king of Judah, and father of Hezekiah. His reign is described in 2 Kings 16 and 2 Chron. 28, and his confrontation by the prophet Isaiah in Isa. 7:1–17. Isaiah’s oracle against the Philistines is dated the year of Ahaz’s death (Isa. 14:28). Hosea and Micah prophesied during his reign (Hos. 1:1; Mic. 1:1). Ahaz reigned for sixteen years (743–727 BC). He followed the syncretistic pagan practices of the Israelite kings. When besieged by the Syrian and Israelite kings, with the aim of replacing him with a puppet ruler (734 BC), he sent a massive tribute to elicit Assyrian protection (2 Kings 16:5–9). This resulted in pro-Assyrian religious compromise (16:10–18). The goal of Isaiah’s embassy to the fearful Ahaz was to encourage a response of faith (Isa. 7:9). Though Isaiah offered him any sign of his choosing, Ahaz masked his refusal in a facade of piety about not testing God (Isa.7:10–12; cf. Deut. 6:16). The hypocritical Ahaz did not want a sign because he had no intention of trusting God in this national crisis. The exasperated prophet responded by announcing the sign of Immanuel.

(2) A Benjamite, a descendant of Saul (1 Chron. 8:35–36; 9:41–42).

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

The KJV and the NRSV use the antiquated English word “fuller” where the NIV uses “washerman, launderer” (2 Kings 18:17; Isa. 7:3; 36:2; Mal. 3:2). The term is derived from an equally antiquated transitive verb, “to full,” which refers to felting wool together by beating it. Other translations make a distinction between the process of “washing” designated by one form of this Hebrew verb and the process of “fulling,” which only appears as a Hebrew noun. See also Washerman’s Field.

The first of the Major Prophets in the canon, the book of Isaiah is one of the longest books in the Bible. This, coupled with the NT’s frequent use of Isaiah, has contributed to the book’s great importance in Christian tradition. Isaiah contains some of the most memorable passages in Scripture, with its majestic poetry and evocative sermons making it a literary masterpiece. Nevertheless, it has also been characterized as a difficult book to comprehend and make sense of as a whole because the connections between different paragraphs and sections appear to be haphazard at times and are difficult to understand. However, some knowledge of the way the book was formed can aid in interpretation.

Authorship

The authorship of Isaiah has been one of the most debated issues in biblical interpretation. Ancient tradition credited the eighth-century BC prophet Isaiah with the entire sixty-six chapters. However, an early Jewish tradition in the Talmud claims that “the men of Hezekiah” compiled Isaiah, showing their awareness that the book did not come entirely from Isaiah.

Literary evidence. Isaiah son of Amoz is referred to as author in three sections of the book (1:1; 2:1; 13:1) and is featured in both third-person (chaps. 7; 20; 36–39) and first-person (chaps. 6; 8) narratives. However, chapters 40–66 have no such headings and do not even mention Isaiah. While references to Isaiah as author in specific sections may suggest that he actually did write the whole book, they may also indicate that he did not write sections that are not ascribed to him. Similarly, historical narratives referring to the prophet in the third person may suggest that someone else wrote them, although the intimate information in them (e.g., 7:3) could point to Isaianic authorship.

Another possible indication of multiple authorship is the marked difference in literary style and vocabulary found in different sections of Isaiah. While such judgments are quite subjective, both sides of the authorship debate acknowledge these stylistic differences.

Historical settings. The debate regarding the authorship of Isaiah really centers on the diverse historical settings within different sections of the book. Chapters 1–39 clearly are set during the late eighth century BC, the period when Assyria is threatening Judah. Assyria is frequently mentioned (e.g., 7:17; 8:4; 10:12; 11:11; 19:23; 20:1; 27:13; 36:1), as are Judean kings (e.g., 1:1; 6:1; 7:1; 14:28; 36:1) and the prophet Isaiah himself (e.g., 1:1; 2:1; 13:1; 20:2; 37:5).

In contrast, the historical setting of chapters 40–55 is not eighth-century BC Judah. Israel is described as in captivity and Jerusalem is referred to as ruined and deserted (44:26, 28; 52:9); there is frequent allusion to the sufferings of the exile (42:22, 25; 43:28; 47:6; 51:17; 52:5); and the coming return from exile is described as close at hand (40:2; 46:13; 48:20). Furthermore, in chapters 40–55 Babylon is Israel’s enemy, even though in Isaiah’s day they were allies. Also, Cyrus the Great, the Persian king who conquered Babylon in 539 BC (ending the exile), is mentioned with no introduction or explanation (44:28; 45:1), even though he lived 150 years after Isaiah. In sum, chapters 40–55 appear to be addressed to Judeans in Babylonian exile.

Conversely, chapters 56–66 appear to come from yet another historical period. Unlike in chapters 40–55, where the temple was destroyed and out of operation, in chapters 56–66 the temple (66:6), along with sacrifices (56:7; 66:3), offerings (57:6; 65:3; 66:3), and Sabbaths (56:2; 58:13; 66:23), is referred to. Also, Jerusalem and its walls are standing (62:6), unlike in chapters 40–55, where it is predicted that Jerusalem will be rebuilt (44:26). This seems to indicate that it addresses those who have returned to Jerusalem after the exile.

This evidence suggests that the book of Isaiah was written by several authors from different time periods. Alternatively, these diverse historical settings could be explained by supposing that Isaiah spoke to audiences in the distant future through divine inspiration. While skeptical scholars holding antisupernatural worldviews have denied this possibility, those who believe in an almighty God believe that he can reveal the distant future to his prophets. However, the question is whether that is in fact the case with Isaiah. It is significant that in chapters 40–55 Babylonian oppression is not predicted as something to come in the future but rather is presupposed as the present conditions under which the writer is living—only the release from exile is predicted. Logically, it would seem that the author lived in the situation that he presupposes and before the situation that he predicts.

Arguments for the unity of Isaiah. Some scholars still hold to the unity of Isaiah on the following grounds: (1) no ancient manuscripts show that the book ever existed in another form; (2) differences in style and vocabulary can be explained by different subject matter (besides which, the title “Holy One of Israel” unites all sections of Isaiah, as it is used thirteen times in chapters 1–39, sixteen times in chapters 40–66, and only seven times in the rest of the Bible); (3) it seems unlikely that an author as great as the one who wrote chapters 40–55 should remain anonymous; and (4) although it is logical to assume that a prophet is contemporary with what he presupposes, once a prophet makes a prediction, that prediction can become a presupposition for another prediction. Therefore, Isaiah’s prediction of exile in 39:6–7 could become the basis or presupposition on which he continued to prophesy the end to the exile.

However, these arguments are not compelling. Although no manuscripts attest to earlier versions of the book, we possess so few manuscripts from before the time of Christ (and none dating to the time during which the three sections of Isaiah are thought to have been combined) that this is insignificant. Also, the differences in subject matter do not seem great enough to explain the very different style and language in the various sections. Regarding the unlikelihood that the writer of chapters 40–55 could remain anonymous, the fact is that many biblical books are indeed anonymous (e.g., Judges, 1–2 Kings, 1–2 Chronicles). However, most significant are the different historical settings of the major sections of Isaiah. If Isaiah was addressing an audience in the distant future, not only would it be a situation unparalleled in the biblical prophets, but also the message would have been largely unintelligible to Isaiah’s contemporaries (especially references to Cyrus). Moreover, the text does not claim to predict these situations but only presupposes them. However, the reality of prophetic inspiration is underscored, as a later author predicts not only the end of the exile but also a suffering messiah.

First, Second, and Third Isaiah. For convenience (and not to imply that each author was named “Isaiah”), the three major sections are often referred to as First Isaiah (chaps. 1–39), Second Isaiah (chaps. 40–55), and Third Isaiah (chaps. 56–66). In light of the purposeful connections between the different sections, it is probable that the book was the product of a “school” of Isaiah’s disciples (cf. 8:16) who collected and organized Isaiah’s words and added to them over a long period of time.

In the end, the involvement of multiple authors in the composition of Isaiah does not undermine its authority as Scripture. Its authority derives not from the namesake prophet but rather from God, who inspired its writing (2 Tim. 3:16).

Plan of the Book

Isaiah has a literary structure similar to that of Ezekiel, Zephaniah, Joel, and the Greek translation of Jeremiah. The first section is concerned with judgment on Israel (chaps. 1–12), the second with judgment on foreign nations (chaps. 13–23), and the third records prophecies of hope and salvation (chaps. 24–27). This structure purposefully places hopeful oracles of comfort after the judgment oracles. Some view the entire book of Isaiah as following this pattern (chaps. 1–12, judgment on Israel; chaps. 13–35, judgment on other nations; chaps. 40–66, oracles of comfort). However, both of these schemes are somewhat forced, since each section is slightly mixed (there are oracles of salvation in chaps. 1–12, prophecies against Judah in chaps. 13–23, and judgment oracles in chaps. 56–66). However, in broad outline it is helpful to recognize this structure.

Outline

I. Judgment on Judah (1–12)

II. Judgment on the Nations (13–27)

III. Warnings to Trust in the Lord (28–35)

IV. The Assyrian Crisis (36–39)

V. The Second Exodus (40–48)

VI. The Restoration of Jerusalem (49–55)

VII. The Earthly and New Jerusalem (56–66)

First Isaiah (Isa. 1–39)

Key historical events. This section of Isaiah comes from the period when the nation of Assyria was aggressively expanding its territory and terrorizing weaker nations, such as Israel and Judah. Two key historical events form the background for many oracles in chapters 1–39 and are the prominent focus there: the Syro-Ephraimite war of 734 BC and the 701 BC Assyrian invasion of Judah.

The Syro-Ephraimite war. The nations of Aram (Syria) and Israel (Ephraim) allied together against Assyria and tried to coerce Judah into joining them. They planned to replace King Ahaz with a king of their choice (7:6), which would end the Davidic dynasty. In the end, Ahaz rejected Isaiah’s advice to simply trust God (7:9) and instead appealed to the king of Assyria for aid. The Assyrians conquered Aram (732 BC) and Israel (722 BC) and assimilated them into the Assyrian empire. Judah survived but had to pay tribute to Assyria from that point onward.

The Assyrian invasion of Judah. The Assyrian king Sennacherib invaded Judah when Hezekiah, Ahaz’s son, reigned in Jerusalem. The invasion devastated Judah; however, when Jerusalem was threatened, Hezekiah, in contrast to his father, trusted God to save them, and the Assyrian army suffered massive losses and failed to take Jerusalem (37:36).

Structure and themes. The structure of chapters 1–39 is quite complex. However, the prophecies and historical narratives concerned with Isaiah’s day are roughly in chronological order (e.g., prophecies and events occurring during the reign of King Ahaz [6:1–8:22] precede those during Hezekiah’s reign [36:1–39:8]). The structure of these chapters alternates between threat and promise (e.g., chap. 1 = threat; 2:1–4 = promise of hope; 2:5–4:1 = threat; 4:2–6 = promise of hope). Analogously, the main themes of these chapters alternate between threat and promise.

Holiness. A major theme of Isaiah is God’s holiness, as evidenced in its favorite title for the Lord, “Holy One of Israel.” While the original idea underlying holiness was physical separation and did not have an ethical dimension (e.g., temple prostitutes in the ancient Near East were called “holy women”), a different concept of holiness emerges in chapter 6, the account of Isaiah’s call. Since 6:1–9:7 is the only part in the book with autobiographical narration, these chapters probably come from an original memoir of Isaiah himself. The memoir is surrounded by judgment oracles with a repeated element, “Yet for all this, his anger is not turned away, his hand is still upraised” (5:25; 9:12, 17, 21; 10:4), suggesting that the memoir as a whole was inserted between these oracles to explain God’s anger recorded in 1–12. God’s mandate to Israel was to “be holy, because I am holy” (Lev. 11:44–45), but Israel failed to follow this command. In the presence of the holy God, Isaiah realized his own sinfulness and the sinfulness of his people (6:5), connecting the concepts of holiness and righteousness.

The remnant. Already in the first chapter we see the emergence of two groups within Israel: the wicked, who will be punished, and a remnant, who will be redeemed (1:27–31). This focus on the remnant was one way in which Isaiah saw hope for Israel despite the coming judgment that he predicted. The remnant theme highlights the apparent tension between God as holy and God as redeemer: God’s holiness is upheld through the judgment on Israel, but God’s character as savior is witnessed through the remnant that is redeemed.

A coming messianic king. The section 6:1–9:7 dates from the time of the Syro-Ephraimite war, and it appears that Isaiah wrote it down (8:16) when Ahaz refused his counsel. The memoir emphasizes the rejection of the Davidic king Ahaz and predicts the birth of a royal son who would replace Ahaz and bring freedom from oppression (9:1–7). This dissatisfaction with the reigning Davidic king was the seedbed for messianic expectations and is the background for the messianic trilogy of 7:14–16; 9:2–7; 11:1–9. While some of these passages may have originally referred to Hezekiah, he falls short of these messianic expectations, leaving the community of faith awaiting another anointed one (messiah). Ominously, chapter 39 describes Hezekiah’s entertaining guests from Babylon, perhaps implying an alliance between the two nations. Hezekiah’s actions prompt Isaiah to predict the Babylonian exile (39:6–7), providing a fitting segue to chapters 40–66.

Second Isaiah (Isa. 40–55)

A message to the exiles. Second Isaiah was written near the end of the exilic period for those who were deported by Nebuchadnezzar to Babylon. Although the exiles in Babylon were settled in communities (Ezek. 3:15) and allowed to build houses and farm the land (Jer. 29:5–7), they had no temple for worship, and many of the exiles probably saw the destruction of Jerusalem and their temple as the end of God’s action on their behalf. The gods of Babylon appeared to have won the victory. The exiles’ faith was flagging, and even those who did not abandon worship of Israel’s God simply clung to the past and expected nothing new from him.

Contrary to these expectations, Second Isaiah proclaims that God is doing something new for his people and bringing an end to the exile (40:1; 55:12). The role of Cyrus in this deliverance is highlighted, with explicit and implicit reference made to the Persian king (41:2–3, 25; 44:28; 45:1–4, 13–14). However, amid the oracles of comfort there is also a challenge to Israel, which is somehow resistant to the message. To break down this resistance, the prophecy has a sustained rhetoric against idol worship, with some quite hilarious sections ridiculing idol makers (44:9–20). Israel needed to realize that only Yahweh is God and to trust that he will redeem Israel for his purposes. Chapters 1–39 allude to the redemption of Israel (1:27; 35:9), and chapters 40–66 reveal more of how this redemption will take place: the work of “the servant.”

The servant. Several poems featuring an anonymous “servant” (42:1–9; 49:1–12; 50:4–11; 52:13–53:12) are often referred to as the Servant Songs. As far back as the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:34), interpreters have struggled with how to identify “the servant.” At times, Israel is explicitly identified as the servant (Isa. 41:8–9; 42:19 [2×]; 43:10), yet the servant clearly also has individual features, suggesting that a person was to fill the role. Some have suggested Cyrus because 42:1 says that the servant “will bring justice to the nations,” and Cyrus is described as conquering nations (41:2, 25; 45:1). However, despite all the talk of Cyrus, the text never explicitly applies the term “servant” to him, which can hardly be by chance. Alternatively, the servant could be the prophet who speaks in these chapters (as the Ethiopian eunuch speculated), since he was destined for his mission before his birth (49:1) and equipped for a mission involving prophetic speech (49:2) and had received divinely revealed knowledge (50:4).

Yet the Servant Songs are also messianic and look forward to a future anointed one who will fulfill the role of the servant fully. In the NT, Jesus is presented as the new Israel (cf. Matt. 2:15 with Hos. 11:1) who truly fulfills the role of the servant (John 12:38, quoting Isa. 53:1; Matt. 8:17, quoting Isa. 53:4). However, Paul appears to hold to a collective interpretation of the songs, as he sees himself as the servant in some instances (Acts 13:47; Rom. 15:21; Gal. 1:15). Both the individual and the collective interpretations are legitimated in the NT, as both Jesus (individual) and the church (collective), which is Christ’s body, fulfill the role of the servant.

Third Isaiah (Isa. 56–66)

In 539 BC Cyrus allowed the exiles to return home to rebuild Jerusalem and its temple (Ezra 1:1–4). Despite many obstacles, the temple was finished in 515 BC. Even with this success, living in the land was challenging (see Malachi), with factions among the people, economic troubles, hypocritical worship (Isa. 58:1–14), and problems with corrupt leaders (56:9–57:13). It was for this postexilic community that Third Isaiah was written (probably before the reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah in 445 BC brought lasting change to the desperate situation).

Unlike in chapters 40–55, where Israel needs to be roused from its despair by the imminent actions of God, in chapters 56–66 the people are pleading with God to help them (59:11; 62:7). In chapter 59 the prophet declares that God’s delay in helping his people is due not to his inability but rather to the sins of the people, which are described, confessed, and lamented.

In many ways, Third Isaiah unites the themes of First Isaiah and Second Isaiah. Second Isaiah emphasizes the inbreaking of a new age that contrasts with the old. The former things are remembered, but the new thing that God was doing—the return from exile—is stressed. However, in Third Isaiah the deliverance from Babylon is seen as merely a foretaste of God’s promise, which is now identified as a new heaven and earth (chaps. 65–66). Third Isaiah looks forward to the new things that are still ahead.

First Isaiah predicts a Davidic messiah who would rule in righteousness (9:1–7; 11:1–9) and a faithful remnant that would respond in trust (10:20; 28:16). Second Isaiah does not continue with these themes, instead turning attention to the “servant” whose suffering and death would atone for Israel (53:4–5). However, Third Isaiah links First Isaiah’s faithful remnant with obedient “servants” who take on the mission of the Suffering Servant in Second Isaiah. This interpretation sets the direction for the NT’s identification of the royal messiah of chapters 1–39 as the servant of chapters 40–55 (Luke 24:26; Acts 8:32). Third Isaiah thus unites and reinterprets the book as a whole.

It is fitting that Jesus read the opening verses of Isa. 61 in the synagogue at the beginning of his ministry. Like Third Isaiah, he united prophecies of both the messianic Davidic ruler of First Isaiah and the Suffering Servant of Second Isaiah, taking on both roles himself. Third Isaiah ends with a glorious future pictured for the Jewish community as they function as priests in the world (61:6). Similarly, Christ’s body, the church, now functions in these same roles in the world (cf. Acts 13:47; Rev. 5:10).

Jesus Christ is the centerpiece of the Christian Scriptures. The meaning and interpretation of both Testaments is properly grasped only in light of the person and work of Jesus Christ. That is not to say that the Testaments testify to Jesus Christ in the exact same way; they obviously do not, but both Testaments are part of the inscripturated revelation that, in light of the incarnation, proclaims Jesus Christ to be the fullest manifestation of God given to humankind.

Old Testament

According to the Scriptures. The early Christians were adamant that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ happened “according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3–4), which meant that these events lined up with Israel’s sacred traditions. On the road to Emmaus the risen Jesus explained to the two travelers the things concerning himself “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” in relation to the death and glorification of the Messiah (Luke 24:27). In one of the major Johannine discourses, Jesus tells the Pharisees that the Scriptures “testify about me” (John 5:39). Early Christian authors could find certain key texts that demonstrated the conformity of the Christ-event to the pattern of Israel’s Scriptures, such as Pss. 2; 110; 118; Isa. 53. Yet much of the OT can be understood without mention of Jesus Christ in relation to its own historical context, and there is the danger of overly allegorizing OT texts in order to make them say something about Jesus Christ and the church.

The relationship between the Testaments. The way that the NT authors echo, allude to, quote, and interpret the OT is a complex matter, but at least two points need to be made about the relationship between the two Testaments.

First, the OT anticipates and illuminates the coming of Jesus Christ. “Anticipate” does not mean “predict,” but the law and the prophets foreshadow the offices and identity of Jesus Christ. The offices of prophet, priest, and king in the OT prefigure the ministry of Christ, who is the one who reveals God, intercedes on behalf of humankind, and is the Messiah and Lord. The sacrificial cultus, with the necessity of shedding blood for the removal of sin, prefigures the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. This is why the law is a “shadow” of the one who was to come (Col. 2:17; Heb. 10:1). “Illuminate” means that certain OT texts, though not referring to Jesus in their historical or literary context, explain aspects of his person and work. This is seen most clearly in the way that the psalms are used in the NT. Texts such as Pss. 2:7; 110:1–4 provided biblical categories that explained the nature of Jesus’ sonship, the quality of his priestly ministry, and his installation as God’s vice-regent.

Second, we should differentiate between prophecy and typology. The prophetic promises in Ezek. 37; Amos 9; and Mic. 4 about a future Davidic king whom God will use to save and restore Israel are genuine prophecies that look forward to a future event yet to be fulfilled. These texts set forth the job description of the Messiah as the renewal and restoration of Israel from bondage and exile. It is unsurprising then that in Acts, James the brother of Jesus could cite Amos 9:11–12 as proof that Gentiles should be accepted into the people of God with the coming of the Messiah (Acts 15:15–18).

Typological interpretation, on the other hand, sees OT persons, places, or events as prototypes or patterns of NT persons, places, or events. For example, in Rom. 5:14 Paul says that Adam is a “type” or “pattern” of the one to come. Similarly, Matthew’s use of Isa. 7:14 in Matt. 1:23 is also typological rather than prophetic. In the context of Isaiah, the promise refers to a child born during the reign of King Ahaz as a sign that the Judean kingdom will survive the Assyrian onslaught. Matthew’s citation does not demand an exact correspondence of events as much as it postulates a correlation of patterns or types between Isaiah’s narrative and the Matthean birth story. The coming of God’s Son, the manifestation of God’s presence, and the rescue of Israel through a child born to a young girl bring to Matthew’s mind Isa. 7 as an obvious prophetic precedent, repeated at a new juncture of redemptive history.

A Christology of the Old Testament. The NT authors interpreted the OT in search of answers to questions pertaining to the identity and ministry of Jesus Christ, the nature of the people of God, and the arrival of the new age. They detected patterns in the OT that were repeated or recapitulated in Jesus’ own person. They proclaimed that the prophetic promises made to Israel had been made good in Jesus Christ, and they found allusions to the various events of his life, death, and exaltation. Jesus and Israel’s Scriptures became a mutually interpretive spiral whereby the Christians began to understand the OT in light of Jesus and understood Jesus in light of the OT. In this canonical setting we can legitimately develop a “Christology of the Old Testament.”

New Testament

The Gospels. The canonical Gospels are four ancient biographies that pay attention to the history and significance of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. They represent a testimony to Jesus and embody the collective memory of his person and actions as they were transmitted and interpreted by Christians in the Greco-Roman world of the mid- to late first century.

All four Gospels follow the same basic outline by variably detailing Jesus’ ministry, passion, and exaltation, and all of them place the story of Jesus in the context of the fulfillment of the story of Israel. At the same time, each Gospel in its plot and portrayal of Jesus remains distinctive in its own right. Yet they are not four different Jesuses, but rather four parallel portraits of Jesus, much like four stained-glass windows or four paintings depict the same person in different ways.

The Gospel of Matthew portrays Jesus as the long-awaited Davidic Messiah of Israel, with a focus on his teaching authority as a type of new Moses. The Gospel of Mark describes Jesus as the powerful Son of God and concurrently as the suffering Son of Man, whose cross reveals the reality of his identity and mission. The Gospel of Luke emphasizes Jesus’ role as an anointed prophet with a special concern for the poor and outcasts and his role as dispenser of the Holy Spirit. Without flattening the distinctive christological shape of each of the Synoptic Gospels, we could say that they focus on Jesus as the proclaimer of the kingdom of God and as king of the very same kingdom.

The Gospel of John has its own set of characteristic emphases in which Jesus’ consciousness of his divine nature and purpose is heightened. Programmatic for the entirety of John’s Gospel is the prologue in 1:1–18 about the “Word [who] became flesh,” which gives a clear theology of incarnation and revelation associated with Jesus’ coming. There is also much material unique to John’s Gospel, such as the “I am” statements that further exposit the nature of Jesus’ person and the climactic confession by Thomas that Jesus is “my Lord and my God” (20:28).

The Gospels indicate that mere knowledge that Jesus died for the purpose of salvation is an insufficient understanding of him. What is also needed, and what they provide, is an understanding of his teachings and his mission in light of Israel’s Scriptures and in view of the sociopolitical situation of Palestine. Jesus came to redeem and renew Israel so that a transformed Israel would transform the world.

Acts. The book of Acts contains the story of the emergence of the early church from Jerusalem to Rome. Even though Acts is a repository of apostolic preaching and plots the beginnings of the Gentile mission, it is the sequel to Luke’s Gospel and is very much the story of Jesus in perfect tense (i.e., a past event with ongoing significance). The most succinct summary of the Christology of Acts is in Peter’s speech in Jerusalem, where he states that “this Jesus” whom they crucified has been made both “Lord and Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” by God (2:36). In the succeeding narratives emphasis is given to “Jesus is the Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” (e.g., 9:22; 17:3; 18:5), which is a message pertinent to Jews and Gentiles (20:21).

Paul’s Letters. The Pauline Epistles, although they are situational, pastoral, and not given primarily to christological exposition, still exhibit beliefs about Jesus held by Paul and his Christian contemporaries. The high points of Paul’s Christology can be detected in his use of traditional material such as Col. 1:15–20, which exposits the sufficiency and the supremacy of Christ. Philippians 2:5–11 narrates the story of the incarnation as an example of self-giving love. In 1 Cor. 8:6 Paul offers a Christianized version of the Shema of Deut. 6:4. There is a petition to Jesus as “Come, Lord!” in 1 Cor. 16:22. Paul can also refer to Jesus as God in Rom. 9:5 (although the grammar is ambiguous). For Paul, Jesus is both the “heavenly man” (1 Cor. 15:47–49) and the Son to come from heaven (1 Thess. 1:10). This interest in the divine Son of God does not mean that Paul was ignorant of or disinterested in the life and teachings of Jesus. Elsewhere he implies knowledge of Jesus’ teachings (e.g., Rom. 14:14; 1 Cor. 7:10–11) and refers to the incarnation (e.g., 2 Cor. 8:9; Col. 2:9).

A number of titles are used to describe Jesus in Paul’s letters, including “Lord” and “Christ/Messiah” (and variations such as “Lord Jesus Christ” and “Christ Jesus”), “Savior,” and “Seed of David” (Rom. 1:3). But probably the most apt expression of Jesus’ nature according to Paul is “Son of God” (e.g., Rom. 1:4; 2 Cor. 1:19; Gal. 2:20). This language of sonship suggests that Jesus is the means of God’s salvation and glory and is the special agent through whom the Father acts. Referring to Jesus as “Son” also underscores Jesus’ unique relationship to God the Father and his unique role in executing the ordained plan of salvation for the elect.

We might also add that Paul provides the building blocks of what would later become a full-blown trinitarian theology, such as in the benediction of 2 Cor. 13:14 and in general exhortations about the gospel (1 Cor. 2:1–5). It must be emphasized that Paul’s Christology cannot be separated from his eschatology, soteriology, and ecclesiology. The sending of God’s Son (see Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:4–5) into the world marks the coming of redemption and salvation through the cross and resurrection of the Son, and these are appropriated by faith. Those who believe become members of the restored Israel, the renewed Adamic race, and constituent members of the body of Christ. To that we might add the experiential element of Paul’s Christology as Jesus is known in the experience of salvation, prayer, and worship (e.g., Gal. 2:19–20).

The General Letters. The General Letters (also called the Catholic Epistles) provide a further array of images and explorations into the person and work of Jesus Christ and how they relate to the community of faith. The message of Hebrews is essentially “Jesus is better!” He is better than the angels and better than Moses; he is a better high priest; he offers a better sacrifice, establishes a better law, and instigates a better covenant. This letter is a sermonic exhortation against falling away from the faith (e.g., 2:1–4), and toward that end the author sets before his readers the magnificence of Jesus Christ, who is “the same yesterday and today and forever” (13:8).

James has little christological content and focuses instead on exhortations that bear remarkable resemblance to the teachings of Jesus from the Gospels. Even so, the letter makes passing reference to the “glorious Lord Jesus Christ” (2:1; cf. 1:1).

Central to 1 Peter is the glory and salvation that will be manifested at the revelation of Jesus Christ at his second coming (1:5, 7, 9, 13; 4:13; 5:1). Much attention is given to Jesus’ sacrificial death as a lamb (1:19), the example of his suffering (2:21–23; 4:1–2, 13), and the substitutionary nature of his death (2:24; 3:18). He is the Shepherd and Overseer of the souls of Christians (2:25). Peter writes this to encourage congregations in Asia Minor living under adverse conditions, and he sets before them the pattern of Jesus as a model for their own journey.

In 2 Peter we find a mix of Jewish eschatological concepts and Hellenistic religious language, with the author seeking to defend the apostolic gospel in a pagan culture. Jesus is the source of knowledge (1:2, 8; 2:20) and righteousness (1:1). Much emphasis is given to the coming kingdom of Jesus Christ (1:11, 16; 3:10). Jesus is the sustainer and renewer of the church and also the coming judge of the entire world.

Similar themes can be found in Jude, which is addressed to a group of believers who have been infiltrated by false teachers promoting licentiousness. Jude declares the infiltrators to be condemned and calls on the believers to hold fast to the faith. Jesus is the “Sovereign and Lord” (v. 4), Jesus saved people out of Egypt during the exodus (v. 5 [but see marginal notes on the variant reading “Lord”]), the second coming of Jesus will mark the revelation of his “mercy” (v. 21), and the benediction ascribes “glory, majesty, power and authority” to God through Jesus (v. 25). Most characteristic of all is the emphasis upon Jesus/God as the one who keeps the believers in the grip of his saving power (vv. 1, 21, 23).

The Letters of John take up where the Gospel of John left off, focusing on Jesus as the incarnate Word of God. The first of the three Johannine Epistles appears to have been written in a context where a community of Christians was being pressured by Jews to deny that Jesus is the Messiah (2:22) and also by dissident docetists to deny that Jesus had a physical body (4:2; 5:6). The major focus, however, is on Jesus as the Son of God (1:3, 7; 2:23; 3:8, 23; 4:9–10, 15; 5:11) and the incarnation of God’s very own truth and love (3:16; cf. 2 John 3).

Revelation. The Christology of the book of Revelation is best summed up in the opening description of Jesus as “him who is, and who was, and who is to come,” which underscores the lordship of Jesus over the past, present, and future. John then describes Jesus with the threefold titles “the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth” (1:4–5). In many ways, the story and Christology of Revelation are paradoxical. Jesus is both the victim of Roman violence and the victor over human evil. Jesus is the suffering “Lamb of God” and the powerful “Lion of the tribe of Judah.” In Rev. 4–5 we are given a picture of the worship in heaven and the enthronement of Jesus, and yet the realities on earth are a dearth of heavenly goodness, with persecution and apostasy rampant (Rev. 1–3). This tension continues until the final revelation of Jesus, when the heavenly Lord returns to bring the goodness and power of heaven to transform the perils of the earth and bring his people into the new Jerusalem.

Summary

The primary fixtures of a biblical Christology are (1) Jesus Christ is the promised deliverer intimated in Israel’s Scriptures, whose identity and mission are anticipated and illuminated by the law and the prophets; (2) the man Jesus of Nazareth is identified with the risen and exalted Lord Jesus Christ; and (3) Jesus participates in the very identity and being of God. See also Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ is the centerpiece of the Christian Scriptures. The meaning and interpretation of both Testaments is properly grasped only in light of the person and work of Jesus Christ. That is not to say that the Testaments testify to Jesus Christ in the exact same way; they obviously do not, but both Testaments are part of the inscripturated revelation that, in light of the incarnation, proclaims Jesus Christ to be the fullest manifestation of God given to humankind.

Old Testament

According to the Scriptures. The early Christians were adamant that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ happened “according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3–4), which meant that these events lined up with Israel’s sacred traditions. On the road to Emmaus the risen Jesus explained to the two travelers the things concerning himself “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” in relation to the death and glorification of the Messiah (Luke 24:27). In one of the major Johannine discourses, Jesus tells the Pharisees that the Scriptures “testify about me” (John 5:39). Early Christian authors could find certain key texts that demonstrated the conformity of the Christ-event to the pattern of Israel’s Scriptures, such as Pss. 2; 110; 118; Isa. 53. Yet much of the OT can be understood without mention of Jesus Christ in relation to its own historical context, and there is the danger of overly allegorizing OT texts in order to make them say something about Jesus Christ and the church.

The relationship between the Testaments. The way that the NT authors echo, allude to, quote, and interpret the OT is a complex matter, but at least two points need to be made about the relationship between the two Testaments.

First, the OT anticipates and illuminates the coming of Jesus Christ. “Anticipate” does not mean “predict,” but the law and the prophets foreshadow the offices and identity of Jesus Christ. The offices of prophet, priest, and king in the OT prefigure the ministry of Christ, who is the one who reveals God, intercedes on behalf of humankind, and is the Messiah and Lord. The sacrificial cultus, with the necessity of shedding blood for the removal of sin, prefigures the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. This is why the law is a “shadow” of the one who was to come (Col. 2:17; Heb. 10:1). “Illuminate” means that certain OT texts, though not referring to Jesus in their historical or literary context, explain aspects of his person and work. This is seen most clearly in the way that the psalms are used in the NT. Texts such as Pss. 2:7; 110:1–4 provided biblical categories that explained the nature of Jesus’ sonship, the quality of his priestly ministry, and his installation as God’s vice-regent.

Second, we should differentiate between prophecy and typology. The prophetic promises in Ezek. 37; Amos 9; and Mic. 4 about a future Davidic king whom God will use to save and restore Israel are genuine prophecies that look forward to a future event yet to be fulfilled. These texts set forth the job description of the Messiah as the renewal and restoration of Israel from bondage and exile. It is unsurprising then that in Acts, James the brother of Jesus could cite Amos 9:11–12 as proof that Gentiles should be accepted into the people of God with the coming of the Messiah (Acts 15:15–18).

Typological interpretation, on the other hand, sees OT persons, places, or events as prototypes or patterns of NT persons, places, or events. For example, in Rom. 5:14 Paul says that Adam is a “type” or “pattern” of the one to come. Similarly, Matthew’s use of Isa. 7:14 in Matt. 1:23 is also typological rather than prophetic. In the context of Isaiah, the promise refers to a child born during the reign of King Ahaz as a sign that the Judean kingdom will survive the Assyrian onslaught. Matthew’s citation does not demand an exact correspondence of events as much as it postulates a correlation of patterns or types between Isaiah’s narrative and the Matthean birth story. The coming of God’s Son, the manifestation of God’s presence, and the rescue of Israel through a child born to a young girl bring to Matthew’s mind Isa. 7 as an obvious prophetic precedent, repeated at a new juncture of redemptive history.

A Christology of the Old Testament. The NT authors interpreted the OT in search of answers to questions pertaining to the identity and ministry of Jesus Christ, the nature of the people of God, and the arrival of the new age. They detected patterns in the OT that were repeated or recapitulated in Jesus’ own person. They proclaimed that the prophetic promises made to Israel had been made good in Jesus Christ, and they found allusions to the various events of his life, death, and exaltation. Jesus and Israel’s Scriptures became a mutually interpretive spiral whereby the Christians began to understand the OT in light of Jesus and understood Jesus in light of the OT. In this canonical setting we can legitimately develop a “Christology of the Old Testament.”

New Testament

The Gospels. The canonical Gospels are four ancient biographies that pay attention to the history and significance of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. They represent a testimony to Jesus and embody the collective memory of his person and actions as they were transmitted and interpreted by Christians in the Greco-Roman world of the mid- to late first century.

All four Gospels follow the same basic outline by variably detailing Jesus’ ministry, passion, and exaltation, and all of them place the story of Jesus in the context of the fulfillment of the story of Israel. At the same time, each Gospel in its plot and portrayal of Jesus remains distinctive in its own right. Yet they are not four different Jesuses, but rather four parallel portraits of Jesus, much like four stained-glass windows or four paintings depict the same person in different ways.

The Gospel of Matthew portrays Jesus as the long-awaited Davidic Messiah of Israel, with a focus on his teaching authority as a type of new Moses. The Gospel of Mark describes Jesus as the powerful Son of God and concurrently as the suffering Son of Man, whose cross reveals the reality of his identity and mission. The Gospel of Luke emphasizes Jesus’ role as an anointed prophet with a special concern for the poor and outcasts and his role as dispenser of the Holy Spirit. Without flattening the distinctive christological shape of each of the Synoptic Gospels, we could say that they focus on Jesus as the proclaimer of the kingdom of God and as king of the very same kingdom.

The Gospel of John has its own set of characteristic emphases in which Jesus’ consciousness of his divine nature and purpose is heightened. Programmatic for the entirety of John’s Gospel is the prologue in 1:1–18 about the “Word [who] became flesh,” which gives a clear theology of incarnation and revelation associated with Jesus’ coming. There is also much material unique to John’s Gospel, such as the “I am” statements that further exposit the nature of Jesus’ person and the climactic confession by Thomas that Jesus is “my Lord and my God” (20:28).

The Gospels indicate that mere knowledge that Jesus died for the purpose of salvation is an insufficient understanding of him. What is also needed, and what they provide, is an understanding of his teachings and his mission in light of Israel’s Scriptures and in view of the sociopolitical situation of Palestine. Jesus came to redeem and renew Israel so that a transformed Israel would transform the world.

Acts. The book of Acts contains the story of the emergence of the early church from Jerusalem to Rome. Even though Acts is a repository of apostolic preaching and plots the beginnings of the Gentile mission, it is the sequel to Luke’s Gospel and is very much the story of Jesus in perfect tense (i.e., a past event with ongoing significance). The most succinct summary of the Christology of Acts is in Peter’s speech in Jerusalem, where he states that “this Jesus” whom they crucified has been made both “Lord and Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” by God (2:36). In the succeeding narratives emphasis is given to “Jesus is the Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” (e.g., 9:22; 17:3; 18:5), which is a message pertinent to Jews and Gentiles (20:21).

Paul’s Letters. The Pauline Epistles, although they are situational, pastoral, and not given primarily to christological exposition, still exhibit beliefs about Jesus held by Paul and his Christian contemporaries. The high points of Paul’s Christology can be detected in his use of traditional material such as Col. 1:15–20, which exposits the sufficiency and the supremacy of Christ. Philippians 2:5–11 narrates the story of the incarnation as an example of self-giving love. In 1 Cor. 8:6 Paul offers a Christianized version of the Shema of Deut. 6:4. There is a petition to Jesus as “Come, Lord!” in 1 Cor. 16:22. Paul can also refer to Jesus as God in Rom. 9:5 (although the grammar is ambiguous). For Paul, Jesus is both the “heavenly man” (1 Cor. 15:47–49) and the Son to come from heaven (1 Thess. 1:10). This interest in the divine Son of God does not mean that Paul was ignorant of or disinterested in the life and teachings of Jesus. Elsewhere he implies knowledge of Jesus’ teachings (e.g., Rom. 14:14; 1 Cor. 7:10–11) and refers to the incarnation (e.g., 2 Cor. 8:9; Col. 2:9).

A number of titles are used to describe Jesus in Paul’s letters, including “Lord” and “Christ/Messiah” (and variations such as “Lord Jesus Christ” and “Christ Jesus”), “Savior,” and “Seed of David” (Rom. 1:3). But probably the most apt expression of Jesus’ nature according to Paul is “Son of God” (e.g., Rom. 1:4; 2 Cor. 1:19; Gal. 2:20). This language of sonship suggests that Jesus is the means of God’s salvation and glory and is the special agent through whom the Father acts. Referring to Jesus as “Son” also underscores Jesus’ unique relationship to God the Father and his unique role in executing the ordained plan of salvation for the elect.

We might also add that Paul provides the building blocks of what would later become a full-blown trinitarian theology, such as in the benediction of 2 Cor. 13:14 and in general exhortations about the gospel (1 Cor. 2:1–5). It must be emphasized that Paul’s Christology cannot be separated from his eschatology, soteriology, and ecclesiology. The sending of God’s Son (see Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:4–5) into the world marks the coming of redemption and salvation through the cross and resurrection of the Son, and these are appropriated by faith. Those who believe become members of the restored Israel, the renewed Adamic race, and constituent members of the body of Christ. To that we might add the experiential element of Paul’s Christology as Jesus is known in the experience of salvation, prayer, and worship (e.g., Gal. 2:19–20).

The General Letters. The General Letters (also called the Catholic Epistles) provide a further array of images and explorations into the person and work of Jesus Christ and how they relate to the community of faith. The message of Hebrews is essentially “Jesus is better!” He is better than the angels and better than Moses; he is a better high priest; he offers a better sacrifice, establishes a better law, and instigates a better covenant. This letter is a sermonic exhortation against falling away from the faith (e.g., 2:1–4), and toward that end the author sets before his readers the magnificence of Jesus Christ, who is “the same yesterday and today and forever” (13:8).

James has little christological content and focuses instead on exhortations that bear remarkable resemblance to the teachings of Jesus from the Gospels. Even so, the letter makes passing reference to the “glorious Lord Jesus Christ” (2:1; cf. 1:1).

Central to 1 Peter is the glory and salvation that will be manifested at the revelation of Jesus Christ at his second coming (1:5, 7, 9, 13; 4:13; 5:1). Much attention is given to Jesus’ sacrificial death as a lamb (1:19), the example of his suffering (2:21–23; 4:1–2, 13), and the substitutionary nature of his death (2:24; 3:18). He is the Shepherd and Overseer of the souls of Christians (2:25). Peter writes this to encourage congregations in Asia Minor living under adverse conditions, and he sets before them the pattern of Jesus as a model for their own journey.

In 2 Peter we find a mix of Jewish eschatological concepts and Hellenistic religious language, with the author seeking to defend the apostolic gospel in a pagan culture. Jesus is the source of knowledge (1:2, 8; 2:20) and righteousness (1:1). Much emphasis is given to the coming kingdom of Jesus Christ (1:11, 16; 3:10). Jesus is the sustainer and renewer of the church and also the coming judge of the entire world.

Similar themes can be found in Jude, which is addressed to a group of believers who have been infiltrated by false teachers promoting licentiousness. Jude declares the infiltrators to be condemned and calls on the believers to hold fast to the faith. Jesus is the “Sovereign and Lord” (v. 4), Jesus saved people out of Egypt during the exodus (v. 5 [but see marginal notes on the variant reading “Lord”]), the second coming of Jesus will mark the revelation of his “mercy” (v. 21), and the benediction ascribes “glory, majesty, power and authority” to God through Jesus (v. 25). Most characteristic of all is the emphasis upon Jesus/God as the one who keeps the believers in the grip of his saving power (vv. 1, 21, 23).

The Letters of John take up where the Gospel of John left off, focusing on Jesus as the incarnate Word of God. The first of the three Johannine Epistles appears to have been written in a context where a community of Christians was being pressured by Jews to deny that Jesus is the Messiah (2:22) and also by dissident docetists to deny that Jesus had a physical body (4:2; 5:6). The major focus, however, is on Jesus as the Son of God (1:3, 7; 2:23; 3:8, 23; 4:9–10, 15; 5:11) and the incarnation of God’s very own truth and love (3:16; cf. 2 John 3).

Revelation. The Christology of the book of Revelation is best summed up in the opening description of Jesus as “him who is, and who was, and who is to come,” which underscores the lordship of Jesus over the past, present, and future. John then describes Jesus with the threefold titles “the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth” (1:4–5). In many ways, the story and Christology of Revelation are paradoxical. Jesus is both the victim of Roman violence and the victor over human evil. Jesus is the suffering “Lamb of God” and the powerful “Lion of the tribe of Judah.” In Rev. 4–5 we are given a picture of the worship in heaven and the enthronement of Jesus, and yet the realities on earth are a dearth of heavenly goodness, with persecution and apostasy rampant (Rev. 1–3). This tension continues until the final revelation of Jesus, when the heavenly Lord returns to bring the goodness and power of heaven to transform the perils of the earth and bring his people into the new Jerusalem.

Summary

The primary fixtures of a biblical Christology are (1) Jesus Christ is the promised deliverer intimated in Israel’s Scriptures, whose identity and mission are anticipated and illuminated by the law and the prophets; (2) the man Jesus of Nazareth is identified with the risen and exalted Lord Jesus Christ; and (3) Jesus participates in the very identity and being of God. See also Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ is the centerpiece of the Christian Scriptures. The meaning and interpretation of both Testaments is properly grasped only in light of the person and work of Jesus Christ. That is not to say that the Testaments testify to Jesus Christ in the exact same way; they obviously do not, but both Testaments are part of the inscripturated revelation that, in light of the incarnation, proclaims Jesus Christ to be the fullest manifestation of God given to humankind.

Old Testament

According to the Scriptures. The early Christians were adamant that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ happened “according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3–4), which meant that these events lined up with Israel’s sacred traditions. On the road to Emmaus the risen Jesus explained to the two travelers the things concerning himself “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” in relation to the death and glorification of the Messiah (Luke 24:27). In one of the major Johannine discourses, Jesus tells the Pharisees that the Scriptures “testify about me” (John 5:39). Early Christian authors could find certain key texts that demonstrated the conformity of the Christ-event to the pattern of Israel’s Scriptures, such as Pss. 2; 110; 118; Isa. 53. Yet much of the OT can be understood without mention of Jesus Christ in relation to its own historical context, and there is the danger of overly allegorizing OT texts in order to make them say something about Jesus Christ and the church.

The relationship between the Testaments. The way that the NT authors echo, allude to, quote, and interpret the OT is a complex matter, but at least two points need to be made about the relationship between the two Testaments.

First, the OT anticipates and illuminates the coming of Jesus Christ. “Anticipate” does not mean “predict,” but the law and the prophets foreshadow the offices and identity of Jesus Christ. The offices of prophet, priest, and king in the OT prefigure the ministry of Christ, who is the one who reveals God, intercedes on behalf of humankind, and is the Messiah and Lord. The sacrificial cultus, with the necessity of shedding blood for the removal of sin, prefigures the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. This is why the law is a “shadow” of the one who was to come (Col. 2:17; Heb. 10:1). “Illuminate” means that certain OT texts, though not referring to Jesus in their historical or literary context, explain aspects of his person and work. This is seen most clearly in the way that the psalms are used in the NT. Texts such as Pss. 2:7; 110:1–4 provided biblical categories that explained the nature of Jesus’ sonship, the quality of his priestly ministry, and his installation as God’s vice-regent.

Second, we should differentiate between prophecy and typology. The prophetic promises in Ezek. 37; Amos 9; and Mic. 4 about a future Davidic king whom God will use to save and restore Israel are genuine prophecies that look forward to a future event yet to be fulfilled. These texts set forth the job description of the Messiah as the renewal and restoration of Israel from bondage and exile. It is unsurprising then that in Acts, James the brother of Jesus could cite Amos 9:11–12 as proof that Gentiles should be accepted into the people of God with the coming of the Messiah (Acts 15:15–18).

Typological interpretation, on the other hand, sees OT persons, places, or events as prototypes or patterns of NT persons, places, or events. For example, in Rom. 5:14 Paul says that Adam is a “type” or “pattern” of the one to come. Similarly, Matthew’s use of Isa. 7:14 in Matt. 1:23 is also typological rather than prophetic. In the context of Isaiah, the promise refers to a child born during the reign of King Ahaz as a sign that the Judean kingdom will survive the Assyrian onslaught. Matthew’s citation does not demand an exact correspondence of events as much as it postulates a correlation of patterns or types between Isaiah’s narrative and the Matthean birth story. The coming of God’s Son, the manifestation of God’s presence, and the rescue of Israel through a child born to a young girl bring to Matthew’s mind Isa. 7 as an obvious prophetic precedent, repeated at a new juncture of redemptive history.

A Christology of the Old Testament. The NT authors interpreted the OT in search of answers to questions pertaining to the identity and ministry of Jesus Christ, the nature of the people of God, and the arrival of the new age. They detected patterns in the OT that were repeated or recapitulated in Jesus’ own person. They proclaimed that the prophetic promises made to Israel had been made good in Jesus Christ, and they found allusions to the various events of his life, death, and exaltation. Jesus and Israel’s Scriptures became a mutually interpretive spiral whereby the Christians began to understand the OT in light of Jesus and understood Jesus in light of the OT. In this canonical setting we can legitimately develop a “Christology of the Old Testament.”

New Testament

The Gospels. The canonical Gospels are four ancient biographies that pay attention to the history and significance of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. They represent a testimony to Jesus and embody the collective memory of his person and actions as they were transmitted and interpreted by Christians in the Greco-Roman world of the mid- to late first century.

All four Gospels follow the same basic outline by variably detailing Jesus’ ministry, passion, and exaltation, and all of them place the story of Jesus in the context of the fulfillment of the story of Israel. At the same time, each Gospel in its plot and portrayal of Jesus remains distinctive in its own right. Yet they are not four different Jesuses, but rather four parallel portraits of Jesus, much like four stained-glass windows or four paintings depict the same person in different ways.

The Gospel of Matthew portrays Jesus as the long-awaited Davidic Messiah of Israel, with a focus on his teaching authority as a type of new Moses. The Gospel of Mark describes Jesus as the powerful Son of God and concurrently as the suffering Son of Man, whose cross reveals the reality of his identity and mission. The Gospel of Luke emphasizes Jesus’ role as an anointed prophet with a special concern for the poor and outcasts and his role as dispenser of the Holy Spirit. Without flattening the distinctive christological shape of each of the Synoptic Gospels, we could say that they focus on Jesus as the proclaimer of the kingdom of God and as king of the very same kingdom.

The Gospel of John has its own set of characteristic emphases in which Jesus’ consciousness of his divine nature and purpose is heightened. Programmatic for the entirety of John’s Gospel is the prologue in 1:1–18 about the “Word [who] became flesh,” which gives a clear theology of incarnation and revelation associated with Jesus’ coming. There is also much material unique to John’s Gospel, such as the “I am” statements that further exposit the nature of Jesus’ person and the climactic confession by Thomas that Jesus is “my Lord and my God” (20:28).

The Gospels indicate that mere knowledge that Jesus died for the purpose of salvation is an insufficient understanding of him. What is also needed, and what they provide, is an understanding of his teachings and his mission in light of Israel’s Scriptures and in view of the sociopolitical situation of Palestine. Jesus came to redeem and renew Israel so that a transformed Israel would transform the world.

Acts. The book of Acts contains the story of the emergence of the early church from Jerusalem to Rome. Even though Acts is a repository of apostolic preaching and plots the beginnings of the Gentile mission, it is the sequel to Luke’s Gospel and is very much the story of Jesus in perfect tense (i.e., a past event with ongoing significance). The most succinct summary of the Christology of Acts is in Peter’s speech in Jerusalem, where he states that “this Jesus” whom they crucified has been made both “Lord and Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” by God (2:36). In the succeeding narratives emphasis is given to “Jesus is the Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” (e.g., 9:22; 17:3; 18:5), which is a message pertinent to Jews and Gentiles (20:21).

Paul’s Letters. The Pauline Epistles, although they are situational, pastoral, and not given primarily to christological exposition, still exhibit beliefs about Jesus held by Paul and his Christian contemporaries. The high points of Paul’s Christology can be detected in his use of traditional material such as Col. 1:15–20, which exposits the sufficiency and the supremacy of Christ. Philippians 2:5–11 narrates the story of the incarnation as an example of self-giving love. In 1 Cor. 8:6 Paul offers a Christianized version of the Shema of Deut. 6:4. There is a petition to Jesus as “Come, Lord!” in 1 Cor. 16:22. Paul can also refer to Jesus as God in Rom. 9:5 (although the grammar is ambiguous). For Paul, Jesus is both the “heavenly man” (1 Cor. 15:47–49) and the Son to come from heaven (1 Thess. 1:10). This interest in the divine Son of God does not mean that Paul was ignorant of or disinterested in the life and teachings of Jesus. Elsewhere he implies knowledge of Jesus’ teachings (e.g., Rom. 14:14; 1 Cor. 7:10–11) and refers to the incarnation (e.g., 2 Cor. 8:9; Col. 2:9).

A number of titles are used to describe Jesus in Paul’s letters, including “Lord” and “Christ/Messiah” (and variations such as “Lord Jesus Christ” and “Christ Jesus”), “Savior,” and “Seed of David” (Rom. 1:3). But probably the most apt expression of Jesus’ nature according to Paul is “Son of God” (e.g., Rom. 1:4; 2 Cor. 1:19; Gal. 2:20). This language of sonship suggests that Jesus is the means of God’s salvation and glory and is the special agent through whom the Father acts. Referring to Jesus as “Son” also underscores Jesus’ unique relationship to God the Father and his unique role in executing the ordained plan of salvation for the elect.

We might also add that Paul provides the building blocks of what would later become a full-blown trinitarian theology, such as in the benediction of 2 Cor. 13:14 and in general exhortations about the gospel (1 Cor. 2:1–5). It must be emphasized that Paul’s Christology cannot be separated from his eschatology, soteriology, and ecclesiology. The sending of God’s Son (see Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:4–5) into the world marks the coming of redemption and salvation through the cross and resurrection of the Son, and these are appropriated by faith. Those who believe become members of the restored Israel, the renewed Adamic race, and constituent members of the body of Christ. To that we might add the experiential element of Paul’s Christology as Jesus is known in the experience of salvation, prayer, and worship (e.g., Gal. 2:19–20).

The General Letters. The General Letters (also called the Catholic Epistles) provide a further array of images and explorations into the person and work of Jesus Christ and how they relate to the community of faith. The message of Hebrews is essentially “Jesus is better!” He is better than the angels and better than Moses; he is a better high priest; he offers a better sacrifice, establishes a better law, and instigates a better covenant. This letter is a sermonic exhortation against falling away from the faith (e.g., 2:1–4), and toward that end the author sets before his readers the magnificence of Jesus Christ, who is “the same yesterday and today and forever” (13:8).

James has little christological content and focuses instead on exhortations that bear remarkable resemblance to the teachings of Jesus from the Gospels. Even so, the letter makes passing reference to the “glorious Lord Jesus Christ” (2:1; cf. 1:1).

Central to 1 Peter is the glory and salvation that will be manifested at the revelation of Jesus Christ at his second coming (1:5, 7, 9, 13; 4:13; 5:1). Much attention is given to Jesus’ sacrificial death as a lamb (1:19), the example of his suffering (2:21–23; 4:1–2, 13), and the substitutionary nature of his death (2:24; 3:18). He is the Shepherd and Overseer of the souls of Christians (2:25). Peter writes this to encourage congregations in Asia Minor living under adverse conditions, and he sets before them the pattern of Jesus as a model for their own journey.

In 2 Peter we find a mix of Jewish eschatological concepts and Hellenistic religious language, with the author seeking to defend the apostolic gospel in a pagan culture. Jesus is the source of knowledge (1:2, 8; 2:20) and righteousness (1:1). Much emphasis is given to the coming kingdom of Jesus Christ (1:11, 16; 3:10). Jesus is the sustainer and renewer of the church and also the coming judge of the entire world.

Similar themes can be found in Jude, which is addressed to a group of believers who have been infiltrated by false teachers promoting licentiousness. Jude declares the infiltrators to be condemned and calls on the believers to hold fast to the faith. Jesus is the “Sovereign and Lord” (v. 4), Jesus saved people out of Egypt during the exodus (v. 5 [but see marginal notes on the variant reading “Lord”]), the second coming of Jesus will mark the revelation of his “mercy” (v. 21), and the benediction ascribes “glory, majesty, power and authority” to God through Jesus (v. 25). Most characteristic of all is the emphasis upon Jesus/God as the one who keeps the believers in the grip of his saving power (vv. 1, 21, 23).

The Letters of John take up where the Gospel of John left off, focusing on Jesus as the incarnate Word of God. The first of the three Johannine Epistles appears to have been written in a context where a community of Christians was being pressured by Jews to deny that Jesus is the Messiah (2:22) and also by dissident docetists to deny that Jesus had a physical body (4:2; 5:6). The major focus, however, is on Jesus as the Son of God (1:3, 7; 2:23; 3:8, 23; 4:9–10, 15; 5:11) and the incarnation of God’s very own truth and love (3:16; cf. 2 John 3).

Revelation. The Christology of the book of Revelation is best summed up in the opening description of Jesus as “him who is, and who was, and who is to come,” which underscores the lordship of Jesus over the past, present, and future. John then describes Jesus with the threefold titles “the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth” (1:4–5). In many ways, the story and Christology of Revelation are paradoxical. Jesus is both the victim of Roman violence and the victor over human evil. Jesus is the suffering “Lamb of God” and the powerful “Lion of the tribe of Judah.” In Rev. 4–5 we are given a picture of the worship in heaven and the enthronement of Jesus, and yet the realities on earth are a dearth of heavenly goodness, with persecution and apostasy rampant (Rev. 1–3). This tension continues until the final revelation of Jesus, when the heavenly Lord returns to bring the goodness and power of heaven to transform the perils of the earth and bring his people into the new Jerusalem.

Summary

The primary fixtures of a biblical Christology are (1) Jesus Christ is the promised deliverer intimated in Israel’s Scriptures, whose identity and mission are anticipated and illuminated by the law and the prophets; (2) the man Jesus of Nazareth is identified with the risen and exalted Lord Jesus Christ; and (3) Jesus participates in the very identity and being of God. See also Jesus Christ.

The Bible is full of teeming creatures and swarming things. These creatures, insects, often play significant roles in the stories and the events described in them. From the first chapter of the Bible to the very last book, these flying, creeping, hopping, and crawling things are prominent.

Terms for Insects

Insects are described in the Bible with both general and specific terms. In the OT, there are three general terms for insects and twenty terms used to refer to specific types of insects. In the NT, two different types of insects are referenced: gnats and locusts.

The two most common general terms for insects are variously translated. Terms and phrases used to describe them include “living creatures” (Gen. 1:20), “creatures that move along the ground” (Gen. 1:24–26; 6:7, 20; 7:8, 14, 23; 8:17, 19; Lev. 5:2; Ezek. 38:20; Hos. 2:18), that which “moves” (Gen. 9:3), “swarming things” (Lev. 11:10), “flying insects” (Lev. 11:20–21, 23; Deut. 14:19), “creatures” (Lev. 11:43), “crawling things” (Lev. 22:5; Ezek. 8:10), “reptiles” (1 Kings 4:33), “teeming creatures” (Ps. 104:25), “small creatures” (Ps. 148:10), and “sea creatures” (Hab. 1:14). The other general term for insects is used with reference to swarms of insects, typically flies (Exod. 8:21–22, 24, 29; Pss. 78:45; 105:31). Specific insects named in Scripture are listed below.

Ants. Ants are used in Proverbs as an example of and encouragement toward wisdom. In 6:6 ants serve as an example for sluggards to reform their slothful ways. Also, in 30:25 ants serve as an example of creatures that, despite their diminutive size, are wise enough to make advance preparations for the long winter.

Bees. Bees are used both literally and figuratively in Scripture. Judges 14:8 refers to honeybees, the product of which becomes the object of Samson’s riddle. The other three uses of bees in the OT are figurative of swarms of enemies against God’s people (Deut. 1:44; Ps. 118:12; Isa. 7:18).

Fleas. Fleas are referenced in the OT only by David to indicate his insignificance in comparison with King Saul (1 Sam. 24:14; 26:20). The irony of the comparison becomes clear with David’s later ascendancy.

Flies. The plague of flies follows that of gnats on Egypt (Exod. 8:20–31). Although the gnats are never said to have left Egypt, the flies are removed upon Moses’ prayer. In Eccles. 10:1 the stench of dead flies is compared to the impact that folly can have on the wise. In Isa. 7:18 flies represent Egypt being summoned by God as his avenging agents on Judah’s sin. In addition, one of the gods in Ekron was named “Baal-Zebub,” which means “lord of the flies” (2 Kings 1:2–3, 6, 16). The reference to Satan in the NT using a similar name is likely an adaptation of the OT god of Ekron (Matt. 10:25; 12:24, 27; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15, 18–19).

Gnats. Gnats are distinguished from flies in the OT, though the distinction is not always apparent. Gnats are employed by God in the third plague on Egypt (Exod. 8:16–19), while flies form the means of punishment in the fourth plague. The two are listed together in Ps. 105:31 and appear parallel, though the former may be a reference to a swarm. Gnats were also used by Jesus to illustrate the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and the scribes (Matt. 23:24).

Hornets. The Bible uses hornets in Scripture as an agent of God’s destruction. The term occurs three times in the OT. In each occurrence these stinging insects refer to God’s expulsion of the Canaanites from the land that God promised to his people. The first two times, Exod. 23:28 and Deut. 7:20, hornets are used in reference to a promise of what God will do; the third time, Josh. 24:12, they illustrate what God did.

Locusts. Of particular interest is the use of locusts in the Bible. The term or a similar nomenclature occurs close to fifty times in the NIV. Locusts demonstrate a number of characteristics in Scripture. First, they are under God’s control (Exod. 10:13–19). As such, they have no king (Prov. 30:27). They serve God’s purposes. Second, locusts often occur in very large numbers or swarms (Judg. 6:5; Jer. 46:23; Nah. 3:15). At times, their numbers can be so large as to cause darkness in the land (Exod. 10:15). Third, in large numbers these insects have been known to ravage homes, devour the land, devastate fields, and debark trees (Exod. 10:12–15; Deut. 28:38; 1 Kings 8:37; 2 Chron. 7:13; Pss. 78:46; 105:34; Isa. 33:4; Joel 1:4–7). Due to their fierceness, they were compared to horses (Rev. 9:7). Fourth, locusts hide at night (Nah. 3:17). Finally, certain types of locusts were used as food.

Moths. Moths are referred to seven times in the OT and four times in the NT. Job uses moths to illustrate the fragility of the unrighteous before God (4:19) and the impermanence of their labors (27:18). The other references to moths in Scripture present them as the consumers of the wealth (garments) and pride of humankind as a means of God’s judgment (Job 13:28; Ps. 39:11; Isa. 50:9; 51:8; Hos. 5:12; Matt. 6:19–20; Luke 12:33; James 5:2).

Functions of Insects in Scripture

As agents in God’s judgment. Insects serve a variety of functions in Scripture. Most notably, insects serve as agents of judgment from God. The OT indicates how insects were used as judgment on both Israel and their enemies.

Moses warned of God’s judgment for Israel’s violation of the covenant. He advised Israel that as a consequence of their sin, they would expend much labor in the field but harvest little, because the locusts would consume them (Deut. 28:38).

Solomon, in his prayer of dedication at the temple, beseeched God regarding judgment that he might send in the form of grasshoppers to besiege the land. He asked that when the people of God repent and pray, God would hear and forgive (2 Chron. 6:26–30). God similarly responded by promising that when he “command[s] locusts to devour the land” as judgment for sin, and his people humble themselves and pray, he will heal and forgive (2 Chron. 7:13–14; cf. 1 Kings 8:37).

The psalmist reminded Israel of God’s wonderful works in their past, one of which was his use of insects as a means of his judgment (Ps. 78:45–46; cf. 105:34).

Joel 1:4 and 2:25 describe God’s judgment on Israel for their unfaithfulness in successive waves of intensity (cf. Deut. 28:38, 42; 2 Chron. 6:28; Amos 4:9–10; 7:1–3). The devastation led to crop failure, famine, destruction of vines and fig trees, and great mourning. The severity of the judgment is described as being unlike anything anyone in the community had ever experienced (Joel 1:2–3).

Locusts are the subject of one of the visions of the prophet Amos. In the vision, God showed him the destructive power of these insects as a means of judgment. Upon seeing the vision, the prophet interceded for the people, and God relented (Amos 7:1–3).

Insects were also used as judgments on Israel’s enemies. In the plagues on Egypt, insects were the agents of the third, fourth, and eighth plagues. The third plague (Exod. 8:16–19) was gnats. Interestingly, this was the first of Moses’ signs that the magicians of Pharaoh could not reproduce. Their response to the Egyptian king was that this must be the “finger of God.” There is no record of the gnats ever leaving Egypt, unlike the other plagues.

The fourth plague was flies (Exod. 8:20–32). Here the Bible specifically indicates a distinction between the land of Goshen, where the Israelites dwelled, and the rest of the land of Egypt. The flies covered all of Egypt except Goshen. This plague led to Pharaoh’s first offer of compromise. Once Moses prayed and the flies left Egypt, Pharaoh hardened his heart.

The eighth plague was in the form of locusts (Exod. 10:1–20). In response to this plague, Pharaoh’s own officials complained to him, beseeching him to let Israel leave their country lest it be entirely destroyed. The threat of this plague led to Pharaoh’s second offer of compromise. Once the locusts began to devastate the land of Egypt, Pharaoh confessed his sin before God, but as soon as the locusts were removed, his heart again became hardened. Thus, three of the ten plagues on Egypt were in the form of insects.

At the end of a series of “woe” passages, the prophet Isaiah proclaimed God’s judgment against the enemies of his people because of their oppression. In the end, those who plundered will themselves be plundered, as if by a “swarm of locusts” (Isa. 33:1–4; cf. Jer. 51:14, 27).

Insects were also used as judgment on people who dwelled in the land of Israel prior to Israel’s occupation. Both before and after the event took place, the Bible describes how God sent hornets to help drive out the occupants of the land of Canaan in preparation for Israel’s arrival. This is described as part of God’s judgment on these nations for their sins against him (Exod. 23:28; Deut. 7:20; Josh. 24:12).

As food. Insects also are mentioned in Scripture as food. Certain types of locusts are listed as clean and eligible for consumption. The NT describes the diet of John the Baptist, which consisted of locusts and wild honey—a diet entirely dependent on insects (Matt. 3:4; Mark 1:6). The OT also notes Samson enjoying the labor of bees as food (Judg. 14:8–9).

Used figuratively. Most often, insects are used figuratively in Scripture. They are used in the proverbs of Scripture to illustrate wisdom. The sages wrote about ants (Prov. 6:6; 30:25), locusts (Prov. 30:27), and even dead flies (Eccles. 10:1) both to extol wisdom and to encourage its development in humankind.

Another figurative use of insects is in the riddle about bees and honey posed by Samson to the Philistines (Judg. 14:12–18). As noted above, Samson ate honey (Judg. 14:8–9; cf. 1 Sam. 14:25–29, 43). Also, Scripture describes the promised land as a place of “milk and honey.”

Insects also are used to symbolize pursuing enemies (Deut. 1:44; Ps. 118:12; Isa. 7:18), innumerable forces (Judg. 6:5; 7:12; Ps. 105:34; Jer. 46:23; Joel 2:25), insignificance (Num. 13:33; 1 Sam. 24:14; 26:20; Job 4:19; 27:18; Ps. 109:23; Eccles. 12:5; Isa. 40:22), vulnerability (Job 4:19), God’s incomparable nature (Job 39:20), the brevity of life (Ps. 109:23), wisdom and organization (Prov. 30:27), and an invading army (Isa. 7:18; Jer. 51:14, 27), and they are employed in a taunt against Israel’s enemies (Nah. 3:15–17), a lesson on hypocrisy (Matt. 23:24), and an image of eschatological judgment (Rev. 9:4–11).

Scriptural Truths about Insects

1. Insects are part of God’s creation. In view of all the uses of insects in Scripture, several key truths emerge. First, insects are a part of the totality of God’s creation. The very first chapter of the Bible uses one of the general terms for insects as part of God’s creative activity on the sixth day of creation (Gen. 1:24). After God reviewed the creation on that day, his assessment of it, including the insects, was that it was “good” (1:25).

2. Insects are under God’s control. A second scriptural truth related to insects in the Bible is that they are under God’s control. In Deut. 7:20 God promised to send hornets ahead of the children of Israel to prepare the promised land for their arrival. Also, in Joel 2:25, when God promised to repair the damage to the land caused by the locusts, he described them as “my great army that I sent.” Thus, the picture emerges that what God has created, he alone reserves the authority to control.

3. Insects are cared for by God. A final truth regarding insects in Scripture is that God takes care of them. Just as Jesus explained God’s care for the birds of the air (Matt. 7:26), the psalmist explained that all of God’s creation, specifically insects, “look to you to give them their food at the proper time” (Ps. 104:25–27). The conclusion of the psalmist is appropriate for all of God’s creation: “When you hide your face, they are terrified; when you take away their breath, they die and return to the dust. When you send your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the ground” (104:29–30). Thus, in the end, God creates, God controls, and God cares—a lesson that all of God’s creation shares.

Jesus Christ is the centerpiece of the Christian Scriptures. The meaning and interpretation of both Testaments is properly grasped only in light of the person and work of Jesus Christ. That is not to say that the Testaments testify to Jesus Christ in the exact same way; they obviously do not, but both Testaments are part of the inscripturated revelation that, in light of the incarnation, proclaims Jesus Christ to be the fullest manifestation of God given to humankind.

Old Testament

According to the Scriptures. The early Christians were adamant that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ happened “according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3–4), which meant that these events lined up with Israel’s sacred traditions. On the road to Emmaus the risen Jesus explained to the two travelers the things concerning himself “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” in relation to the death and glorification of the Messiah (Luke 24:27). In one of the major Johannine discourses, Jesus tells the Pharisees that the Scriptures “testify about me” (John 5:39). Early Christian authors could find certain key texts that demonstrated the conformity of the Christ-event to the pattern of Israel’s Scriptures, such as Pss. 2; 110; 118; Isa. 53. Yet much of the OT can be understood without mention of Jesus Christ in relation to its own historical context, and there is the danger of overly allegorizing OT texts in order to make them say something about Jesus Christ and the church.

The relationship between the Testaments. The way that the NT authors echo, allude to, quote, and interpret the OT is a complex matter, but at least two points need to be made about the relationship between the two Testaments.

First, the OT anticipates and illuminates the coming of Jesus Christ. “Anticipate” does not mean “predict,” but the law and the prophets foreshadow the offices and identity of Jesus Christ. The offices of prophet, priest, and king in the OT prefigure the ministry of Christ, who is the one who reveals God, intercedes on behalf of humankind, and is the Messiah and Lord. The sacrificial cultus, with the necessity of shedding blood for the removal of sin, prefigures the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. This is why the law is a “shadow” of the one who was to come (Col. 2:17; Heb. 10:1). “Illuminate” means that certain OT texts, though not referring to Jesus in their historical or literary context, explain aspects of his person and work. This is seen most clearly in the way that the psalms are used in the NT. Texts such as Pss. 2:7; 110:1–4 provided biblical categories that explained the nature of Jesus’ sonship, the quality of his priestly ministry, and his installation as God’s vice-regent.

Second, we should differentiate between prophecy and typology. The prophetic promises in Ezek. 37; Amos 9; and Mic. 4 about a future Davidic king whom God will use to save and restore Israel are genuine prophecies that look forward to a future event yet to be fulfilled. These texts set forth the job description of the Messiah as the renewal and restoration of Israel from bondage and exile. It is unsurprising then that in Acts, James the brother of Jesus could cite Amos 9:11–12 as proof that Gentiles should be accepted into the people of God with the coming of the Messiah (Acts 15:15–18).

Typological interpretation, on the other hand, sees OT persons, places, or events as prototypes or patterns of NT persons, places, or events. For example, in Rom. 5:14 Paul says that Adam is a “type” or “pattern” of the one to come. Similarly, Matthew’s use of Isa. 7:14 in Matt. 1:23 is also typological rather than prophetic. In the context of Isaiah, the promise refers to a child born during the reign of King Ahaz as a sign that the Judean kingdom will survive the Assyrian onslaught. Matthew’s citation does not demand an exact correspondence of events as much as it postulates a correlation of patterns or types between Isaiah’s narrative and the Matthean birth story. The coming of God’s Son, the manifestation of God’s presence, and the rescue of Israel through a child born to a young girl bring to Matthew’s mind Isa. 7 as an obvious prophetic precedent, repeated at a new juncture of redemptive history.

A Christology of the Old Testament. The NT authors interpreted the OT in search of answers to questions pertaining to the identity and ministry of Jesus Christ, the nature of the people of God, and the arrival of the new age. They detected patterns in the OT that were repeated or recapitulated in Jesus’ own person. They proclaimed that the prophetic promises made to Israel had been made good in Jesus Christ, and they found allusions to the various events of his life, death, and exaltation. Jesus and Israel’s Scriptures became a mutually interpretive spiral whereby the Christians began to understand the OT in light of Jesus and understood Jesus in light of the OT. In this canonical setting we can legitimately develop a “Christology of the Old Testament.”

New Testament

The Gospels. The canonical Gospels are four ancient biographies that pay attention to the history and significance of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. They represent a testimony to Jesus and embody the collective memory of his person and actions as they were transmitted and interpreted by Christians in the Greco-Roman world of the mid- to late first century.

All four Gospels follow the same basic outline by variably detailing Jesus’ ministry, passion, and exaltation, and all of them place the story of Jesus in the context of the fulfillment of the story of Israel. At the same time, each Gospel in its plot and portrayal of Jesus remains distinctive in its own right. Yet they are not four different Jesuses, but rather four parallel portraits of Jesus, much like four stained-glass windows or four paintings depict the same person in different ways.

The Gospel of Matthew portrays Jesus as the long-awaited Davidic Messiah of Israel, with a focus on his teaching authority as a type of new Moses. The Gospel of Mark describes Jesus as the powerful Son of God and concurrently as the suffering Son of Man, whose cross reveals the reality of his identity and mission. The Gospel of Luke emphasizes Jesus’ role as an anointed prophet with a special concern for the poor and outcasts and his role as dispenser of the Holy Spirit. Without flattening the distinctive christological shape of each of the Synoptic Gospels, we could say that they focus on Jesus as the proclaimer of the kingdom of God and as king of the very same kingdom.

The Gospel of John has its own set of characteristic emphases in which Jesus’ consciousness of his divine nature and purpose is heightened. Programmatic for the entirety of John’s Gospel is the prologue in 1:1–18 about the “Word [who] became flesh,” which gives a clear theology of incarnation and revelation associated with Jesus’ coming. There is also much material unique to John’s Gospel, such as the “I am” statements that further exposit the nature of Jesus’ person and the climactic confession by Thomas that Jesus is “my Lord and my God” (20:28).

The Gospels indicate that mere knowledge that Jesus died for the purpose of salvation is an insufficient understanding of him. What is also needed, and what they provide, is an understanding of his teachings and his mission in light of Israel’s Scriptures and in view of the sociopolitical situation of Palestine. Jesus came to redeem and renew Israel so that a transformed Israel would transform the world.

Acts. The book of Acts contains the story of the emergence of the early church from Jerusalem to Rome. Even though Acts is a repository of apostolic preaching and plots the beginnings of the Gentile mission, it is the sequel to Luke’s Gospel and is very much the story of Jesus in perfect tense (i.e., a past event with ongoing significance). The most succinct summary of the Christology of Acts is in Peter’s speech in Jerusalem, where he states that “this Jesus” whom they crucified has been made both “Lord and Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” by God (2:36). In the succeeding narratives emphasis is given to “Jesus is the Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” (e.g., 9:22; 17:3; 18:5), which is a message pertinent to Jews and Gentiles (20:21).

Paul’s Letters. The Pauline Epistles, although they are situational, pastoral, and not given primarily to christological exposition, still exhibit beliefs about Jesus held by Paul and his Christian contemporaries. The high points of Paul’s Christology can be detected in his use of traditional material such as Col. 1:15–20, which exposits the sufficiency and the supremacy of Christ. Philippians 2:5–11 narrates the story of the incarnation as an example of self-giving love. In 1 Cor. 8:6 Paul offers a Christianized version of the Shema of Deut. 6:4. There is a petition to Jesus as “Come, Lord!” in 1 Cor. 16:22. Paul can also refer to Jesus as God in Rom. 9:5 (although the grammar is ambiguous). For Paul, Jesus is both the “heavenly man” (1 Cor. 15:47–49) and the Son to come from heaven (1 Thess. 1:10). This interest in the divine Son of God does not mean that Paul was ignorant of or disinterested in the life and teachings of Jesus. Elsewhere he implies knowledge of Jesus’ teachings (e.g., Rom. 14:14; 1 Cor. 7:10–11) and refers to the incarnation (e.g., 2 Cor. 8:9; Col. 2:9).

A number of titles are used to describe Jesus in Paul’s letters, including “Lord” and “Christ/Messiah” (and variations such as “Lord Jesus Christ” and “Christ Jesus”), “Savior,” and “Seed of David” (Rom. 1:3). But probably the most apt expression of Jesus’ nature according to Paul is “Son of God” (e.g., Rom. 1:4; 2 Cor. 1:19; Gal. 2:20). This language of sonship suggests that Jesus is the means of God’s salvation and glory and is the special agent through whom the Father acts. Referring to Jesus as “Son” also underscores Jesus’ unique relationship to God the Father and his unique role in executing the ordained plan of salvation for the elect.

We might also add that Paul provides the building blocks of what would later become a full-blown trinitarian theology, such as in the benediction of 2 Cor. 13:14 and in general exhortations about the gospel (1 Cor. 2:1–5). It must be emphasized that Paul’s Christology cannot be separated from his eschatology, soteriology, and ecclesiology. The sending of God’s Son (see Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:4–5) into the world marks the coming of redemption and salvation through the cross and resurrection of the Son, and these are appropriated by faith. Those who believe become members of the restored Israel, the renewed Adamic race, and constituent members of the body of Christ. To that we might add the experiential element of Paul’s Christology as Jesus is known in the experience of salvation, prayer, and worship (e.g., Gal. 2:19–20).

The General Letters. The General Letters (also called the Catholic Epistles) provide a further array of images and explorations into the person and work of Jesus Christ and how they relate to the community of faith. The message of Hebrews is essentially “Jesus is better!” He is better than the angels and better than Moses; he is a better high priest; he offers a better sacrifice, establishes a better law, and instigates a better covenant. This letter is a sermonic exhortation against falling away from the faith (e.g., 2:1–4), and toward that end the author sets before his readers the magnificence of Jesus Christ, who is “the same yesterday and today and forever” (13:8).

James has little christological content and focuses instead on exhortations that bear remarkable resemblance to the teachings of Jesus from the Gospels. Even so, the letter makes passing reference to the “glorious Lord Jesus Christ” (2:1; cf. 1:1).

Central to 1 Peter is the glory and salvation that will be manifested at the revelation of Jesus Christ at his second coming (1:5, 7, 9, 13; 4:13; 5:1). Much attention is given to Jesus’ sacrificial death as a lamb (1:19), the example of his suffering (2:21–23; 4:1–2, 13), and the substitutionary nature of his death (2:24; 3:18). He is the Shepherd and Overseer of the souls of Christians (2:25). Peter writes this to encourage congregations in Asia Minor living under adverse conditions, and he sets before them the pattern of Jesus as a model for their own journey.

In 2 Peter we find a mix of Jewish eschatological concepts and Hellenistic religious language, with the author seeking to defend the apostolic gospel in a pagan culture. Jesus is the source of knowledge (1:2, 8; 2:20) and righteousness (1:1). Much emphasis is given to the coming kingdom of Jesus Christ (1:11, 16; 3:10). Jesus is the sustainer and renewer of the church and also the coming judge of the entire world.

Similar themes can be found in Jude, which is addressed to a group of believers who have been infiltrated by false teachers promoting licentiousness. Jude declares the infiltrators to be condemned and calls on the believers to hold fast to the faith. Jesus is the “Sovereign and Lord” (v. 4), Jesus saved people out of Egypt during the exodus (v. 5 [but see marginal notes on the variant reading “Lord”]), the second coming of Jesus will mark the revelation of his “mercy” (v. 21), and the benediction ascribes “glory, majesty, power and authority” to God through Jesus (v. 25). Most characteristic of all is the emphasis upon Jesus/God as the one who keeps the believers in the grip of his saving power (vv. 1, 21, 23).

The Letters of John take up where the Gospel of John left off, focusing on Jesus as the incarnate Word of God. The first of the three Johannine Epistles appears to have been written in a context where a community of Christians was being pressured by Jews to deny that Jesus is the Messiah (2:22) and also by dissident docetists to deny that Jesus had a physical body (4:2; 5:6). The major focus, however, is on Jesus as the Son of God (1:3, 7; 2:23; 3:8, 23; 4:9–10, 15; 5:11) and the incarnation of God’s very own truth and love (3:16; cf. 2 John 3).

Revelation. The Christology of the book of Revelation is best summed up in the opening description of Jesus as “him who is, and who was, and who is to come,” which underscores the lordship of Jesus over the past, present, and future. John then describes Jesus with the threefold titles “the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth” (1:4–5). In many ways, the story and Christology of Revelation are paradoxical. Jesus is both the victim of Roman violence and the victor over human evil. Jesus is the suffering “Lamb of God” and the powerful “Lion of the tribe of Judah.” In Rev. 4–5 we are given a picture of the worship in heaven and the enthronement of Jesus, and yet the realities on earth are a dearth of heavenly goodness, with persecution and apostasy rampant (Rev. 1–3). This tension continues until the final revelation of Jesus, when the heavenly Lord returns to bring the goodness and power of heaven to transform the perils of the earth and bring his people into the new Jerusalem.

Summary

The primary fixtures of a biblical Christology are (1) Jesus Christ is the promised deliverer intimated in Israel’s Scriptures, whose identity and mission are anticipated and illuminated by the law and the prophets; (2) the man Jesus of Nazareth is identified with the risen and exalted Lord Jesus Christ; and (3) Jesus participates in the very identity and being of God. See also Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ is the centerpiece of the Christian Scriptures. The meaning and interpretation of both Testaments is properly grasped only in light of the person and work of Jesus Christ. That is not to say that the Testaments testify to Jesus Christ in the exact same way; they obviously do not, but both Testaments are part of the inscripturated revelation that, in light of the incarnation, proclaims Jesus Christ to be the fullest manifestation of God given to humankind.

Old Testament

According to the Scriptures. The early Christians were adamant that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ happened “according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3–4), which meant that these events lined up with Israel’s sacred traditions. On the road to Emmaus the risen Jesus explained to the two travelers the things concerning himself “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” in relation to the death and glorification of the Messiah (Luke 24:27). In one of the major Johannine discourses, Jesus tells the Pharisees that the Scriptures “testify about me” (John 5:39). Early Christian authors could find certain key texts that demonstrated the conformity of the Christ-event to the pattern of Israel’s Scriptures, such as Pss. 2; 110; 118; Isa. 53. Yet much of the OT can be understood without mention of Jesus Christ in relation to its own historical context, and there is the danger of overly allegorizing OT texts in order to make them say something about Jesus Christ and the church.

The relationship between the Testaments. The way that the NT authors echo, allude to, quote, and interpret the OT is a complex matter, but at least two points need to be made about the relationship between the two Testaments.

First, the OT anticipates and illuminates the coming of Jesus Christ. “Anticipate” does not mean “predict,” but the law and the prophets foreshadow the offices and identity of Jesus Christ. The offices of prophet, priest, and king in the OT prefigure the ministry of Christ, who is the one who reveals God, intercedes on behalf of humankind, and is the Messiah and Lord. The sacrificial cultus, with the necessity of shedding blood for the removal of sin, prefigures the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. This is why the law is a “shadow” of the one who was to come (Col. 2:17; Heb. 10:1). “Illuminate” means that certain OT texts, though not referring to Jesus in their historical or literary context, explain aspects of his person and work. This is seen most clearly in the way that the psalms are used in the NT. Texts such as Pss. 2:7; 110:1–4 provided biblical categories that explained the nature of Jesus’ sonship, the quality of his priestly ministry, and his installation as God’s vice-regent.

Second, we should differentiate between prophecy and typology. The prophetic promises in Ezek. 37; Amos 9; and Mic. 4 about a future Davidic king whom God will use to save and restore Israel are genuine prophecies that look forward to a future event yet to be fulfilled. These texts set forth the job description of the Messiah as the renewal and restoration of Israel from bondage and exile. It is unsurprising then that in Acts, James the brother of Jesus could cite Amos 9:11–12 as proof that Gentiles should be accepted into the people of God with the coming of the Messiah (Acts 15:15–18).

Typological interpretation, on the other hand, sees OT persons, places, or events as prototypes or patterns of NT persons, places, or events. For example, in Rom. 5:14 Paul says that Adam is a “type” or “pattern” of the one to come. Similarly, Matthew’s use of Isa. 7:14 in Matt. 1:23 is also typological rather than prophetic. In the context of Isaiah, the promise refers to a child born during the reign of King Ahaz as a sign that the Judean kingdom will survive the Assyrian onslaught. Matthew’s citation does not demand an exact correspondence of events as much as it postulates a correlation of patterns or types between Isaiah’s narrative and the Matthean birth story. The coming of God’s Son, the manifestation of God’s presence, and the rescue of Israel through a child born to a young girl bring to Matthew’s mind Isa. 7 as an obvious prophetic precedent, repeated at a new juncture of redemptive history.

A Christology of the Old Testament. The NT authors interpreted the OT in search of answers to questions pertaining to the identity and ministry of Jesus Christ, the nature of the people of God, and the arrival of the new age. They detected patterns in the OT that were repeated or recapitulated in Jesus’ own person. They proclaimed that the prophetic promises made to Israel had been made good in Jesus Christ, and they found allusions to the various events of his life, death, and exaltation. Jesus and Israel’s Scriptures became a mutually interpretive spiral whereby the Christians began to understand the OT in light of Jesus and understood Jesus in light of the OT. In this canonical setting we can legitimately develop a “Christology of the Old Testament.”

New Testament

The Gospels. The canonical Gospels are four ancient biographies that pay attention to the history and significance of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. They represent a testimony to Jesus and embody the collective memory of his person and actions as they were transmitted and interpreted by Christians in the Greco-Roman world of the mid- to late first century.

All four Gospels follow the same basic outline by variably detailing Jesus’ ministry, passion, and exaltation, and all of them place the story of Jesus in the context of the fulfillment of the story of Israel. At the same time, each Gospel in its plot and portrayal of Jesus remains distinctive in its own right. Yet they are not four different Jesuses, but rather four parallel portraits of Jesus, much like four stained-glass windows or four paintings depict the same person in different ways.

The Gospel of Matthew portrays Jesus as the long-awaited Davidic Messiah of Israel, with a focus on his teaching authority as a type of new Moses. The Gospel of Mark describes Jesus as the powerful Son of God and concurrently as the suffering Son of Man, whose cross reveals the reality of his identity and mission. The Gospel of Luke emphasizes Jesus’ role as an anointed prophet with a special concern for the poor and outcasts and his role as dispenser of the Holy Spirit. Without flattening the distinctive christological shape of each of the Synoptic Gospels, we could say that they focus on Jesus as the proclaimer of the kingdom of God and as king of the very same kingdom.

The Gospel of John has its own set of characteristic emphases in which Jesus’ consciousness of his divine nature and purpose is heightened. Programmatic for the entirety of John’s Gospel is the prologue in 1:1–18 about the “Word [who] became flesh,” which gives a clear theology of incarnation and revelation associated with Jesus’ coming. There is also much material unique to John’s Gospel, such as the “I am” statements that further exposit the nature of Jesus’ person and the climactic confession by Thomas that Jesus is “my Lord and my God” (20:28).

The Gospels indicate that mere knowledge that Jesus died for the purpose of salvation is an insufficient understanding of him. What is also needed, and what they provide, is an understanding of his teachings and his mission in light of Israel’s Scriptures and in view of the sociopolitical situation of Palestine. Jesus came to redeem and renew Israel so that a transformed Israel would transform the world.

Acts. The book of Acts contains the story of the emergence of the early church from Jerusalem to Rome. Even though Acts is a repository of apostolic preaching and plots the beginnings of the Gentile mission, it is the sequel to Luke’s Gospel and is very much the story of Jesus in perfect tense (i.e., a past event with ongoing significance). The most succinct summary of the Christology of Acts is in Peter’s speech in Jerusalem, where he states that “this Jesus” whom they crucified has been made both “Lord and Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” by God (2:36). In the succeeding narratives emphasis is given to “Jesus is the Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” (e.g., 9:22; 17:3; 18:5), which is a message pertinent to Jews and Gentiles (20:21).

Paul’s Letters. The Pauline Epistles, although they are situational, pastoral, and not given primarily to christological exposition, still exhibit beliefs about Jesus held by Paul and his Christian contemporaries. The high points of Paul’s Christology can be detected in his use of traditional material such as Col. 1:15–20, which exposits the sufficiency and the supremacy of Christ. Philippians 2:5–11 narrates the story of the incarnation as an example of self-giving love. In 1 Cor. 8:6 Paul offers a Christianized version of the Shema of Deut. 6:4. There is a petition to Jesus as “Come, Lord!” in 1 Cor. 16:22. Paul can also refer to Jesus as God in Rom. 9:5 (although the grammar is ambiguous). For Paul, Jesus is both the “heavenly man” (1 Cor. 15:47–49) and the Son to come from heaven (1 Thess. 1:10). This interest in the divine Son of God does not mean that Paul was ignorant of or disinterested in the life and teachings of Jesus. Elsewhere he implies knowledge of Jesus’ teachings (e.g., Rom. 14:14; 1 Cor. 7:10–11) and refers to the incarnation (e.g., 2 Cor. 8:9; Col. 2:9).

A number of titles are used to describe Jesus in Paul’s letters, including “Lord” and “Christ/Messiah” (and variations such as “Lord Jesus Christ” and “Christ Jesus”), “Savior,” and “Seed of David” (Rom. 1:3). But probably the most apt expression of Jesus’ nature according to Paul is “Son of God” (e.g., Rom. 1:4; 2 Cor. 1:19; Gal. 2:20). This language of sonship suggests that Jesus is the means of God’s salvation and glory and is the special agent through whom the Father acts. Referring to Jesus as “Son” also underscores Jesus’ unique relationship to God the Father and his unique role in executing the ordained plan of salvation for the elect.

We might also add that Paul provides the building blocks of what would later become a full-blown trinitarian theology, such as in the benediction of 2 Cor. 13:14 and in general exhortations about the gospel (1 Cor. 2:1–5). It must be emphasized that Paul’s Christology cannot be separated from his eschatology, soteriology, and ecclesiology. The sending of God’s Son (see Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:4–5) into the world marks the coming of redemption and salvation through the cross and resurrection of the Son, and these are appropriated by faith. Those who believe become members of the restored Israel, the renewed Adamic race, and constituent members of the body of Christ. To that we might add the experiential element of Paul’s Christology as Jesus is known in the experience of salvation, prayer, and worship (e.g., Gal. 2:19–20).

The General Letters. The General Letters (also called the Catholic Epistles) provide a further array of images and explorations into the person and work of Jesus Christ and how they relate to the community of faith. The message of Hebrews is essentially “Jesus is better!” He is better than the angels and better than Moses; he is a better high priest; he offers a better sacrifice, establishes a better law, and instigates a better covenant. This letter is a sermonic exhortation against falling away from the faith (e.g., 2:1–4), and toward that end the author sets before his readers the magnificence of Jesus Christ, who is “the same yesterday and today and forever” (13:8).

James has little christological content and focuses instead on exhortations that bear remarkable resemblance to the teachings of Jesus from the Gospels. Even so, the letter makes passing reference to the “glorious Lord Jesus Christ” (2:1; cf. 1:1).

Central to 1 Peter is the glory and salvation that will be manifested at the revelation of Jesus Christ at his second coming (1:5, 7, 9, 13; 4:13; 5:1). Much attention is given to Jesus’ sacrificial death as a lamb (1:19), the example of his suffering (2:21–23; 4:1–2, 13), and the substitutionary nature of his death (2:24; 3:18). He is the Shepherd and Overseer of the souls of Christians (2:25). Peter writes this to encourage congregations in Asia Minor living under adverse conditions, and he sets before them the pattern of Jesus as a model for their own journey.

In 2 Peter we find a mix of Jewish eschatological concepts and Hellenistic religious language, with the author seeking to defend the apostolic gospel in a pagan culture. Jesus is the source of knowledge (1:2, 8; 2:20) and righteousness (1:1). Much emphasis is given to the coming kingdom of Jesus Christ (1:11, 16; 3:10). Jesus is the sustainer and renewer of the church and also the coming judge of the entire world.

Similar themes can be found in Jude, which is addressed to a group of believers who have been infiltrated by false teachers promoting licentiousness. Jude declares the infiltrators to be condemned and calls on the believers to hold fast to the faith. Jesus is the “Sovereign and Lord” (v. 4), Jesus saved people out of Egypt during the exodus (v. 5 [but see marginal notes on the variant reading “Lord”]), the second coming of Jesus will mark the revelation of his “mercy” (v. 21), and the benediction ascribes “glory, majesty, power and authority” to God through Jesus (v. 25). Most characteristic of all is the emphasis upon Jesus/God as the one who keeps the believers in the grip of his saving power (vv. 1, 21, 23).

The Letters of John take up where the Gospel of John left off, focusing on Jesus as the incarnate Word of God. The first of the three Johannine Epistles appears to have been written in a context where a community of Christians was being pressured by Jews to deny that Jesus is the Messiah (2:22) and also by dissident docetists to deny that Jesus had a physical body (4:2; 5:6). The major focus, however, is on Jesus as the Son of God (1:3, 7; 2:23; 3:8, 23; 4:9–10, 15; 5:11) and the incarnation of God’s very own truth and love (3:16; cf. 2 John 3).

Revelation. The Christology of the book of Revelation is best summed up in the opening description of Jesus as “him who is, and who was, and who is to come,” which underscores the lordship of Jesus over the past, present, and future. John then describes Jesus with the threefold titles “the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth” (1:4–5). In many ways, the story and Christology of Revelation are paradoxical. Jesus is both the victim of Roman violence and the victor over human evil. Jesus is the suffering “Lamb of God” and the powerful “Lion of the tribe of Judah.” In Rev. 4–5 we are given a picture of the worship in heaven and the enthronement of Jesus, and yet the realities on earth are a dearth of heavenly goodness, with persecution and apostasy rampant (Rev. 1–3). This tension continues until the final revelation of Jesus, when the heavenly Lord returns to bring the goodness and power of heaven to transform the perils of the earth and bring his people into the new Jerusalem.

Summary

The primary fixtures of a biblical Christology are (1) Jesus Christ is the promised deliverer intimated in Israel’s Scriptures, whose identity and mission are anticipated and illuminated by the law and the prophets; (2) the man Jesus of Nazareth is identified with the risen and exalted Lord Jesus Christ; and (3) Jesus participates in the very identity and being of God. See also Jesus Christ.

The economic life of the biblical world rested on the precepts of improvement of one’s standing, stable interaction between individuals and nations, and the fact that all of life belonged first to God. The ability to create a stable economy was driven by international standing, military strength, and environmental conditions. As a state, Israel was far more successful in creating and sustaining wealth during periods with little upheaval in the monarchy and when there was little threat from outside forces. The reign of Solomon in the united monarchy and the coterminous reigns of Uzziah in Judah and Jeroboam II in Israel, therefore, represent the periods with the most favorable economic conditions, and indeed these two periods are generally considered to be golden ages of economic and cultural strength.

The Economy of Israel

Before the monarchy. The economic life of the Bible begins with the creation account and the reflections communicated there about humankind’s stewardship of that which belongs to God. Humankind is placed in the world as the caregiver and protector of the rest of creation. This purpose will have ramifications for the remainder of the biblical story. Throughout the Bible, God expresses a deep concern for economic justice and economic well-being among his people. The law given by God sets out an economic and political framework that builds on this idea of justice and human stewardship of God’s creation, including some rather striking passages meant to assure a just distribution and maintenance of resources and equality (Lev. 25:1–55; Deut. 10:17–18; 15:1–11). The emphasis on economic and social justice is closely related to spiritual faithfulness throughout the prophetic texts. Isaiah speaks of economic prosperity and peace as an integral part of God’s desire for Israel. Amos, Jeremiah, and Micah denounce the economic injustices within Israel. This attitude and emphasis continue into the NT, where Jesus talks as much about economics in his teachings as he does about the rest of the Christian life. Jesus’ primary emphases in discussing economic matters suggest a need to recognize both the priority of the heavenly economy over the earthly and the fact that one’s economic activities must communicate a sense of justice and mercy as well.

The lack of a centralized government and industry in the early years of Israel’s existence meant that much of the economy revolved around private ownership and agrarian realities. In conquering the land of Canaan, the Israelites were transformed from seminomads into agriculturists, but they were still largely on their own in economic matters. They dwelled in villages and towns and lived off of what they raised in their fields and the milk and meat of their livestock. There was limited trade during this period, primarily existing only through opportunities provided by traveling merchants from Phoenicia and elsewhere. The modifications that took place in the Canaanite material culture when they were assumed by Israel were slight in nature in this early period. The period of the judges reveals a brutal culture, and the people would have remained somewhat constrained economically in the days prior to the monarchy. As stated above, the laws certainly are important in understanding how Israel viewed itself before God; however, it must be admitted that there were relatively few requisites concerning business contained in its precepts (Lev. 19:35–36; 25:36–37, 44–45; Deut. 15:2; 23:20). This may in fact reflect the more individualized nature of the early economic systems of Israel.

The monarchy. With the beginning of the monarchy, and especially the reign of Solomon, signs of extensive external trade begin to manifest themselves within Israel. The primary exports seem still to have been agricultural in nature, as Solomon is said to have sent grains and oil to Tyre in exchange for their timber and workers (1 Kings 5). Horses were a significant sign of wealth in the ancient world, and during his reign, Solomon apparently was able to import quite a few from Egypt (1 Kings 10:28–29). Solomon is even said to have sent ships to the far reaches of the known world to acquire gold, silver, iron, apes, and peacocks (1 Kings 10:22). Solomon also saw the development of an extensive system of internal economic prosperity through division of the land into districts and through establishing firm control of the major arteries of travel within Israel (1 Kings 4). Unfortunately, Solomon’s successors lacked his economic acumen. Due to inner turmoil and outside forces, Israel was unable to regain the standing that it held under Solomon, except for a brief period during the reign of Uzziah. Interestingly, the prophets often equated merchants with the Canaanites (Hos. 12:7; Zeph. 1:11; Zech. 14:21). The kings of the northern kingdom of Israel seem to have fared slightly better in economic matters than did the kings of Judah. Ahab obtained a special standing in the markets of Damascus (1 Kings 20:34), and Jeroboam II raised Israel to powerful status in the world’s economic perspectives.

After the exile. Following the return from the exile, the Jewish community was severely impoverished and had very little business activity except in its larger cities (Neh. 3:31–32). Hellenism brought with it a renewal of trade capabilities, and Josephus reports that by the mid-second century BC, Athenian merchants came regularly to Judea. The Maccabees captured Joppa, and Herod built Caesarea, which ultimately improved the economic standing of the Jews because they then controlled port locations.

Life in the NT seems not to have varied much from that in the OT, the most important exception being the stability and ease of transport resulting from Roman control of the region. This stability was often offset, however, by the imposition of high taxes. The NT relates the vast disparity of economic lifestyle between the enormously wealthy and the severely impoverished. There were also political and religious ramifications to be found in the struggle to find a proper response to taxation. This dilemma is reflected in the two opposing viewpoints among the twelve apostles, including the views of a tax collector and of a Zealot. The early church seems to have dealt with economic matters with various degrees of success (Rev. 2:9; 3:17).

Coinage

The monetary system of Israel seems to have always been based primarily on gold and silver. In fact, the Hebrew word most often translated “money,” kesep, is the word for “silver.” It is unclear exactly when coinage started in Israel. Opinions vary from the period just before the exile to several years after the exile. Up until that point, worth was assessed not by the value of the coin but rather by the weight of the metal. People carried their own weights in a bag that were used to determine the value of an exchange (Deut. 25:13; 2 Sam. 18:12); thus, the focus for ensuring fair trade was almost always on guarding against the use of false weights and scales (Lev. 19:36). The precursors to coinage seem to have been pieces of silver and gold that were considered to be a certain weight, though the emphasis was still on the weight of the product (Josh. 7:21; 1 Sam. 9:8). The basic standard of weight was the shekel.

The Persians developed a more fixed system of coinage. Darius first introduced a reformed currency system around 520–480 BC. The basic standard was the daric, which was comparable to a Babylonian shekel in weight. Because of the inherent value of coins, the purity of the metals used became more important. This resulted in a slight shift in monetary imagery related to purity versus fair weight. In the Roman era, the denarius was the basic unit of money.

Villages and Cities

The OT distinguished in size between villages and cities. The smallest measure of communal living seems to have been farming settlements or homesteads (Exod. 8:9; Neh. 11:25; Ps. 10:8). Larger settlements were referred to as villages (Gen. 25:16; 1 Sam. 6:18) or cities (Gen. 4:17; 19:25, 29). Cities were usually built along a lake or river (Tiberius and Beth Shan) or where natural springs were sufficient to sustain a large population (Jerusalem and Jericho). Streets in the cities seemed to have been named after the place to which they led or by the industry represented on them (Neh. 11:35; Isa. 7:3; Jer. 37:21). Open squares were found mainly at the gates of the city, where most of the commerce took place and which tended to be the centers of city life. The gate and the adjoining open area constituted the marketplace, hence, names such as “Sheep Gate” (Neh. 3:1, 3, 32; 12:39; Zeph. 1:10). The wells sometimes were situated here (2 Sam. 23:15–16). News from the outside was announced first at the gate (1 Sam. 4:18). Finally, court and council sessions were held at the gate (Deut. 13:17; Ruth 4:11; 2 Kings 7:1; Job 29:7; cf. Gen. 19:7).

Economic Issues Addressed in the Bible

Slavery. Slavery was considered legitimate in various circumstances, but since individual possession of a slave was somewhat rare, it never became a centerpiece of the Israelite economic structures. It was a capital offense to kidnap people for the purpose of enslaving them (Exod. 20:10–16; Deut. 24:7). When held by individual families, slaves were to be treated as part of an extended family, and they were permitted to partake in important festivals and to observe the Sabbath (Exod. 20:10; Deut. 16:14). Ideally, slaves in debt bondage and Israelite slaves owned by foreign residents were automatically freed at the Jubilee. If they had not already purchased their freedom, male Israelite slaves were automatically freed once they had worked for six years (Exod. 21:2; Lev. 25:39–55); however, the prophet Jeremiah’s denunciation of the permanent enslavement of Hebrew men and women by their masters (Jer. 34:8–22) suggests that these practices were not faithfully executed within Israel’s history.

Death, marriage, and redemption. The economic impact of death is addressed to some degree in the biblical texts. Daughters who received an inheritance of land because of the lack of a male heir were required to marry within the tribe in order to preserve the tribal allotments outlined by God in his gift of land to the people (Num. 27:7–8; 36:6–9). If the deceased had no children of his own, his closest male relative would receive the land (Num. 27:9–11). The levirate and go’el (“redeemer”) systems seem to have been enacted in order to protect both widows and the property rights of the family. Marriage with a brother’s widow was forbidden as a general rule (Lev. 20:21), but when no male heir was present, the act was considered obligatory (Deut. 25:5–10). Although there is some disagreement, most would consider the case of Ruth to be not one of levirate marriage, but instead an expression of the go’el (Lev. 25:25; Jer. 32:6–9). The two systems apparently are related, with the latter being an extension of the former. But the important distinction is that the go’el’s duties included redemption in much broader terms, including redemption from slavery (Lev. 25:47–55) and vengeance in the case of wrongful death (Deut. 19:6). One clear case of levirate marriage is found in the attempts of Tamar to bear a child with the brother of Er, her deceased husband, and then eventually with Er’s father (Gen. 38).

Tithing. Tithing one’s possessions was a very ancient custom that actually predates the law codes and is found in the time of the patriarchs. Abraham gave Melchizedek “a tenth of everything” (Gen. 14:20), and Jacob made a vow that if he returned to his father’s house in safety, he would acknowledge Yahweh as his Lord and would give him a tenth of all that he possessed (Gen. 28:20–22). The tithe that was applied to the seed of the land or to the fruit of the tree was redeemable. The tithe of cattle, on the other hand, was not redeemable. Determining which animal was the tithe involved counting each animal singly, and every tenth one that passed under the rod became the tithe animal (Lev. 27:30–33). There is apparently some disparity in the biblical texts relating to a tithe. Nehemiah 10:37–38 seems to clearly indicate that there was only one prescribed tithe taken in the OT era. However, there are three texts regulating the tithe in the OT (Lev. 27:30–33; Num. 18:21–32; Deut. 14:22–29). It would seem, then, that each law gives only a partial picture of the regulations involving the tithe, as each assumes both the presence and the regulations of the others. The practice of the tithe in Israel involved a yearly gift to the temple, with the gifts of every third year kept in the community for the care of the poor and oppressed. These laws, then, were a reminder of Israel’s holy status before God and that its enjoyment of the rewards of that status was a consequence of their election. Consequently, the tithe demanded recognition of God’s ownership of all the land. Furthermore, by being allowed to consume part of the tithe (Deut. 14:23), participants were reminded of the priority of God in their economy and lives.

The names of God given in the Bible are an important means of revelation about his character and works. The names come from three sources: God himself, those who encounter him in the biblical record, and the biblical writers. This article is concerned mainly with the names that occur in the OT, though the NT will be referenced when helpful.

In the Bible the meaning of names is often significant and points to the character of the person so named. As might be expected, this is especially true for God. The names that he gives to himself always are a form of revelation; the names that humans give to God often are a form of testimony.

Yahweh: The Lord

Pronunciation. Unquestionably, for OT revelation the most important name is “(the) Lord.” In English Bibles this represents the name declared by God to Moses at the burning bush (“I am who I am” [Exod. 3:13–15]) and the related term used elsewhere in the OT; in Hebrew this term consists of the four consonants YHWH and is therefore known as the Tetragrammaton (“four letters”). Hebrew does not count vowels as part of its alphabet; in biblical times one simply wrote the consonants of a word and the reader supplied the correct vowels by knowing the vocabulary, grammar, and context. However, to avoid violating the commandment in the Decalogue that prohibits the misuse of God’s name (Exod. 20:7; Deut. 5:11), the Jews stopped pronouncing it. Consequently, no one today knows its correct original pronunciation, but the best evidence available suggests “Yahweh,” which has become the conventional pronunciation (consider the Hebrew word “hallelujah,” which actually is “hallelu-Yah,” hence “praise the Lord”). In ancient Jewish tradition, “Adonai” (“my Lord”) was substituted for “Yahweh.” In fact, when Hebrew eventually developed a vowel notation system, instead of the vowels for “Yahweh,” the vowels for “Adonai” were indicated whenever YHWH appeared in the biblical text, as a reminder. Combining the consonants YHWH with the vowels of “Adonai” yields something like “Yehowah,” which is the origin of the familiar (but mistaken and nonexistent) “Jehovah.” English Bibles typically use “Lord” (small capital letters) for “Yahweh,” and “Lord” (regular letters) for “Adonai,” which distinguishes the two.

Meaning. More vital than the matter of the pronunciation of YHWH is the question of its meaning. There seem to be two main opinions. One sees YHWH as denoting eternal self-existence, partly because it is suggested by the grammar of Exod. 3:14 (the words “I am” use a form of the Hebrew verb that suggests being without beginning or end) and partly because that is the meaning Jesus apparently ascribes to it in John 8:58. The other opinion, suggested by usage, is that YHWH indicates dynamic, active, divine presence: God’s being present in a special way to act on someone’s behalf (e.g., Gen. 26:28; 39:2–3; Josh. 6:27; 1 Sam. 18:12–14). This idea also appears in the episode of the burning bush (Exod. 3:12): when Moses protests his inadequacy to confront Pharaoh, God assures him of his presence, a reality noted with other prophets (1 Sam. 3:19; Jer. 1:8).

Perhaps the best points of reference for understanding the meaning of YHWH are God’s own proclamations. In addition to Exod. 3:13–15, at least two other passages in Exodus give God’s commentary (as it were) about the meaning of his name. An important one is Exod. 34:5–7. A key passage in the theology proper of ancient Israel, its themes echo in later OT Scripture (Num. 14:18–19; Ps. 103:7–12; Jon. 4:2). What is noteworthy about the texts cited is that all of them say something remarkable about the grace of God. This fits, for the revelation of Exod. 34:5–7 is given in the context of covenant renewal after the incident of the golden calf. Moses invokes God’s name in the Numbers text to avoid catastrophic judgment when the Israelites refuse to enter the promised land. The psalm text picks up this theme and connects it with God’s revelation of his ways to the chosen people. Jonah, remarkably, affirms that the same grace extends even toward a wicked Gentile city such as Nineveh.

Another such passage is Exod. 6:2–8. Here God reaffirms his redemptive purpose for captive Israel, despite the fact that Moses’ first encounter with Pharaoh has not gone well. God assures the prophet that he has remembered his covenant with the patriarchs, whom he says did not know him as “Yahweh,” which probably means that the patriarchs did not experience him in the way or character that their descendants would in the exodus event (though it is possible to translate the Hebrew here as a rhetorical question with an affirmative idea: “And indeed, by my name Yahweh did I not make myself known to them?”). God then proceeds to outline the redemptive experience in its fullness: deliverance from bondage, reception into a covenant relationship, and possession of the land promised to their ancestors (vv. 6–8). The statement is bracketed with this declaration: “I am the Lord” (vv. 2, 8). One stated purpose of this redemptive work is that Israel might come to understand this (v. 7). This is important to note because a central theme of Exodus as a book is the identity of the God of Israel. This concern prompts Moses to ask for God’s name at the burning bush (3:13), and this contempt for the God of the enslaved Hebrews causes Pharaoh to be dismissive at his first meeting with Moses and Aaron (5:2). Moses asks with the concern of a seeker and receives one of the most profound declarations of God’s identity in the Bible. Pharaoh asks with the contempt of a scorner and receives one of the most powerful displays of God’s identity in the Bible (the plagues). The contrast is both striking and instructive. The meaning of God’s name, then, is revealed in works as well as words, and his purpose is that not just his people but all peoples may come to understand who he is. Yet another majestic statement in the book of Exodus (9:13–16) makes this abundantly clear.

Based on this pattern of usage, the name “Yahweh” seems to signify especially the active presence of God to bless, deliver, or otherwise aid his people. Where this presence is absent, there is no success, victory, protection, or peace (Num. 14:39–45; Josh. 7:10–12; Judg. 16:20; 1 Sam. 16:13–14). The message that God not only is but also is present to save and deliver may well be the most important truth communicated in the OT, and it is only natural to see its ultimate embodiment in the person and work of Christ (Isa. 7:14; cf. Matt. 1:21–23).

Name used in combination. The name “Yahweh” also is used in combination with other terms. After God grants a military victory to Israel over the Amalekites, Moses names a commemorative altar “Yahweh Nissi,” meaning “the Lord is my Banner” (Exod. 17:15). In Ezekiel’s temple vision Jerusalem is called “Yahweh Shammah,” meaning “the Lord is there” (Ezek. 48:35). A familiar expression is “the Lord of hosts,” which is generally comparable to the expression “commander in chief” used in American culture (cf. 1 Kings 22:19–23).

Elohim

This is the first term for God encountered in the Bible, right in the opening verse. It is a more generic term, denoting deity in contrast to humans or angels. “Elohim” is a plural form; the singular terms “El” and “Eloah” are used occasionally, particularly in poetic texts. “El” is a common term in the biblical world; in fact, it is the name for the father of Baal in the Canaanite religion. This may explain why the Bible commonly uses the plural form, to distinguish the one true God, the God of Israel, from his pagan rivals. Others explain the plural form as a “plural of majesty” or “plural of intensity,” though it is uncertain just what this would mean. Some see the foundation for NT revelation of the Trinity (Gen. 1:26–27; 11:6–7; cf. John 17:20–22), but this is unlikely. The plural form also can serve simply as a common noun, referring to pagan deities (Exod. 12:12), angels (Ps. 97:7, arguably), or even human authorities (Exod. 22:28, possibly).

“El” also occurs in combination with other descriptive terms. The best known is “El Shaddai,” meaning “God Almighty” (Gen. 17:1). The precise meaning of “Shaddai” is uncertain, but it seems to have the notion of “great/powerful one.” The distressed Hagar, caught, comforted, and counseled by the mysterious personage at a well, calls God “El Roi,” which means “the God who sees me” (Gen. 16:13). One of the most exalted expressions to describe God is “El Elyon,” meaning “God Most High.” This title seems to have particular reference to God as the owner and master of creation (Gen. 14:18–20).

Adonai

As noted above, this common word meaning simply “(my) lord/master” is used regularly in place of the personal name of God revealed to Moses in Exod. 3:14. And in the OT of most English Bibles this is indicated by printing “Lord” as opposed to “Lord” (using small capital letters). However, “Adonai” is used of God in some noteworthy instances, such as Isaiah’s lofty vision of God exalted in Isa. 6 and the prophecy of Immanuel in Isa. 7:14. In time, this became the preferred term for referring to God, and the LXX reflected this by using the Greek word kyrios (“lord”) for Yahweh. This makes the ease with which NT writers transfer the use of the term to Jesus (e.g., 1 Cor. 12:3) a strong indication of their Christology.

A transliteration of the Hebrew phrase ’immanu ’el, which means “God is with us.” This name is a reminder of God’s presence, and although the name “Immanuel” appears in the Bible only a few times (Isa. 7:14; 8:8; Matt. 1:23; cf. Isa. 8:10), the theme of God’s presence is one of the most prevalent in Scripture.

In Isa. 7 the prophet Isaiah tells King Ahaz not to fear the two kings who threaten him, but to trust in God. In fact, Isaiah proclaims, God will give a sign to Ahaz. An unnamed “virgin” (Heb. ’almah, which normally means “young, unmarried woman”) will conceive and give birth to a child, whose name will be “Immanuel” (Isa. 7:14). Interestingly, there is no mention of a father. Before this child grows old enough to know right from wrong, Isaiah continues, God will destroy both of the kings who threaten Ahaz (7:15–16). At this point, the sign of Immanuel appears to refer to a child born during the time of Ahaz as a sign to him of God’s power and ability to deliver.

Yet, this promised child seems to be rather unusual. In Isa. 8:8 God declares that Immanuel owns all the land of Judah, indicating that he is no mere unknown or obscure child. Furthermore, in 8:10 victory is declared for Judah because “God is with us [’immanu ’el].” The use of this phrase is a wordplay on the name “Immanuel,” suggesting that the sign of a child named “Immanuel” may point to something beyond just a child in Ahaz’s time.

In the LXX, the word used for the young, unmarried woman in Isa. 7:14, parthenos, explicitly meant “virgin.” Using this Greek word, Matthew declares that the virgin birth of Jesus Christ was a fulfillment of Isa. 7:14 (Matt. 1:23). Thus, it appears that Isa. 7:14 was fulfilled twice, or at least that the prophecy contained a dual aspect. It was fulfilled first in a minimal way during the reign of Ahaz and then ultimately by the virgin birth of Jesus.

Matthew, of course, is saying much more than that Jesus fulfills the prophecy of Isa. 7:14: Jesus embodies the presence of God. The presence of God is a major theological theme running throughout the Bible. Matthew opens his Gospel with the proclamation that Jesus fulfills Isaiah’s prophecy of Immanuel, “God is with us” (1:23), and he closes with Jesus’ statement “I am with you always” (28:20), a promise of Jesus Christ’s empowering presence. The Gospel of John opens with the same theme, stating, “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us” (1:14). Frequently in the NT, Jesus is connected to the powerful presence of God. At the climactic end of the biblical story the focus is once again on presence, as the “Lord God Almighty and the Lamb” once again dwell with God’s people in the garden (Rev. 21–22), the ultimate example of “God is with us.”

 

Types of Food

In the biblical era, food consisted primarily of meats, cereals, vegetables, and fruits, though cereals and vegetables made up the bulk of the diet of people in the ancient Near East. Grains generally were ground into either coarse or fine flour. With or without leaven, the flour was made into a loaf of sorts, baked, and consumed. Usually, one grain was used for any particular bread, though in difficult times multiple types of grains could be combined to create a loaf large enough for consumption (Ezek. 4:9).

Vegetables and fruits were not as varied in the ancient cultures as they are today. Generally, among vegetables, the consumer was limited to various types of lentils, cucumbers, onions, and leeks. These were eaten raw or cooked. Fruits were limited to dates, grapes, melons, olives, and figs. Fruits generally were dried, but they were also eaten raw and prepared in various ways. Nuts, including almonds and pistachios, also were consumed (Gen. 43:11), as were pulses such as lentils and legumes such as beans (2 Sam. 17:28).

Meat consumption usually was reserved for festivals and special occasions. The most important animals used for consumption were sheep, goats, and cattle. Lamb was much more common as a dietary element than beef because it was less costly and more common. As prescribed by Scripture, the blood could not be consumed when eating meat (Lev. 17:10–11). Meat generally was boiled when prepared, though it could be roasted on a spit (1 Sam. 2:15). On a rare occasion, game meat was consumed, but this was considered a delicacy (Gen. 27:5–7). In order to be considered clean and capable of being consumed, the animal from which the meat was acquired had to have chewed a cud and have a divided hoof (Lev. 11:2–8).

Fish were consumed in good quantity but are mentioned much less often in the OT than in the NT, especially the Gospels. There is mention of the Fish Gate in Jerusalem (2 Chron. 33:14; Neh. 3:3; Zeph. 1:10), which suggests that fish were sufficiently available to merit their own marketplace in the city. Fish were salted and dried before their consumption and seem to have been primarily an import item in Israel’s early history (Neh. 13:16), though by the time of the NT, Israel had obviously developed its own thriving fishing industry. To be ceremonially clean and fit for consumption, fish had to possess both fins and scales (thus shellfish were unclean; Lev. 11:9–12).

Animal by-products, such as honey, milk, and cheese, were a staple in Israelite diets (Deut. 32:14; Prov. 30:33; Isa. 7:15). These were stored in skins or in wooden vessels and sometimes were mixed to create a sweet milk or cheese. Milk was also used as a cooking element, though it was forbidden to cook a young goat in its mother’s milk (Exod. 34:26).

Meals and Dietary Issues

A formal dinner or banquet typically consisted of an appetizer (usually something pickled), the meal proper, and a dessert. Wine was consumed, sometimes flavored with spices or honey. The people consuming the meal reclined at the table with their feet away from the food, thus allowing servants to continue to wash feet as necessary. Some sort of entertainment usually took place, including music, reading, or dialogue on some significant matter.

The early church struggled with various dietary issues. The first of these was the matter of the consumption of unclean animals. The events of Acts 10; 15 suggest that for the early church, these dietary laws were abandoned. In fact, of the OT regulations, only the one prohibiting the eating of meat with blood in it was enforced by the Jerusalem council (Acts 15:29). Paul seems to go further than this in stating that no food is unclean in and of itself (Rom. 14:14; cf. Mark 7:19). The second dietary issue centered not on the food itself, but rather on the prior use of that food, in this case meat, in pagan rituals and worship (see Food Sacrificed to Idols). Like most ancient Near Eastern cultures, the Greeks acquired some of their meat from the temples, which had a ready supply of it following religious rites and festivals. Most meat used for consumption had already been offered to an idol, and Christians debated whether it was appropriate to eat such meat. Paul responds to this question in 1 Corinthians, arguing that believers are free to eat such meat if their conscience is clear in doing so, but not if doing so offends or troubles the faith of fellow believers (1 Cor. 8; 10:23–11:1).

The various Hebrew and Greek words that express the idea of fulfillment occur hundreds of times in the Bible, and the concept often is present even when the specific word is not. At the basic level, fulfillment indicates a relationship between two (or more) things in which the second is said to “fill up” the significance of the first. Frequently this takes the form of a specific promise that is said to be fulfilled when the person, object, or event referred to comes to pass. There are countless examples of this type of fulfillment, some of which even quote the specific promise that is being fulfilled. The seventy years of Babylonian captivity prophesied by Jeremiah (Jer. 29:10) are said to be fulfilled when Cyrus permits the Jews to return to the land (Ezra 1:1–4). Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem (Matt. 2:1–6) fulfills the promise of a ruler who will shepherd Israel (Mic. 5:2).

But the concept of fulfillment goes beyond specific promises that are then said to be fulfilled in a particular person, object, or event. In the broadest sense of the term, one can say that the NT fulfills what the OT promises. After his resurrection, Jesus reminds his disciples, “Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms” (Luke 24:44). He then provides a summary of the entire OT message: “The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem” (Luke 24:46–47).

Although all four Gospels describe Jesus as the fulfillment of the OT hope, Matthew places special emphasis on this by his use of the term “fulfill” when introducing OT quotes. He does so eleven times (1:22; 2:15, 17, 23; 4:14; 8:17; 12:17; 13:14, 35; 21:4; 27:9), most of which have no direct parallel in the other Gospels. In some of these examples the passage quoted from the OT specifically points forward to a future fulfillment, such as the promise in Isa. 7:14 of a child being born finding its fulfillment in the birth of Jesus (Matt. 1:23). But in other cases the OT passage said to be fulfilled does not appear to be a prediction at all in its original context. Commenting on Joseph, Mary, and the baby Jesus leaving Egypt to eventually settle in Nazareth, Matthew notes that this departure took place to fulfill “what the Lord had said through the prophet: ‘Out of Egypt I called my son’ ” (2:15). The quotation comes from Hos. 11:1, which says, “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.” In its original context, Hos. 11:1 is a straightforward statement of God leading the people of Israel out of their Egyptian captivity in the exodus. There is no indication that the prophet is predicting anything at all; he is instead recounting historical fact. But in that historical event Matthew sees an anticipation of Jesus’ own exodus out of Egypt. The correspondence between the two events rests in recognizing that just as Israel was God’s son (cf. Exod. 4:22), so too Jesus is the Son of God (Matt. 3:17), albeit in a much more profound way.

Fulfillment often takes place in stages. An example of this is seen in the numerous promises surrounding the day of the Lord. On the one hand, the prophets speak of the day of the Lord in a way that anticipates a catastrophic event in the near future (Isa. 13:6–9; Joel 1:15; Amos 5:18–19). But the language used is applied to multiple events, from the destruction of Jerusalem (Ezek. 13:5) to the crucifixion (Matt. 27:45–54) to the return of Christ (Matt. 24:29–31). In one sense all the promises of the OT find their initial fulfillment in Christ (2 Cor. 1:20) but await their consummation in the new heaven and new earth (Rev. 21–22). Thus, the claim that a promise has been fulfilled does not automatically imply that the promise has been exhausted. There may be additional “fulfillments” to the original promise.

The various Hebrew and Greek words that express the idea of fulfillment occur hundreds of times in the Bible, and the concept often is present even when the specific word is not. At the basic level, fulfillment indicates a relationship between two (or more) things in which the second is said to “fill up” the significance of the first. Frequently this takes the form of a specific promise that is said to be fulfilled when the person, object, or event referred to comes to pass. There are countless examples of this type of fulfillment, some of which even quote the specific promise that is being fulfilled. The seventy years of Babylonian captivity prophesied by Jeremiah (Jer. 29:10) are said to be fulfilled when Cyrus permits the Jews to return to the land (Ezra 1:1–4). Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem (Matt. 2:1–6) fulfills the promise of a ruler who will shepherd Israel (Mic. 5:2).

But the concept of fulfillment goes beyond specific promises that are then said to be fulfilled in a particular person, object, or event. In the broadest sense of the term, one can say that the NT fulfills what the OT promises. After his resurrection, Jesus reminds his disciples, “Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms” (Luke 24:44). He then provides a summary of the entire OT message: “The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem” (Luke 24:46–47).

Although all four Gospels describe Jesus as the fulfillment of the OT hope, Matthew places special emphasis on this by his use of the term “fulfill” when introducing OT quotes. He does so eleven times (1:22; 2:15, 17, 23; 4:14; 8:17; 12:17; 13:14, 35; 21:4; 27:9), most of which have no direct parallel in the other Gospels. In some of these examples the passage quoted from the OT specifically points forward to a future fulfillment, such as the promise in Isa. 7:14 of a child being born finding its fulfillment in the birth of Jesus (Matt. 1:23). But in other cases the OT passage said to be fulfilled does not appear to be a prediction at all in its original context. Commenting on Joseph, Mary, and the baby Jesus leaving Egypt to eventually settle in Nazareth, Matthew notes that this departure took place to fulfill “what the Lord had said through the prophet: ‘Out of Egypt I called my son’ ” (2:15). The quotation comes from Hos. 11:1, which says, “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.” In its original context, Hos. 11:1 is a straightforward statement of God leading the people of Israel out of their Egyptian captivity in the exodus. There is no indication that the prophet is predicting anything at all; he is instead recounting historical fact. But in that historical event Matthew sees an anticipation of Jesus’ own exodus out of Egypt. The correspondence between the two events rests in recognizing that just as Israel was God’s son (cf. Exod. 4:22), so too Jesus is the Son of God (Matt. 3:17), albeit in a much more profound way.

Fulfillment often takes place in stages. An example of this is seen in the numerous promises surrounding the day of the Lord. On the one hand, the prophets speak of the day of the Lord in a way that anticipates a catastrophic event in the near future (Isa. 13:6–9; Joel 1:15; Amos 5:18–19). But the language used is applied to multiple events, from the destruction of Jerusalem (Ezek. 13:5) to the crucifixion (Matt. 27:45–54) to the return of Christ (Matt. 24:29–31). In one sense all the promises of the OT find their initial fulfillment in Christ (2 Cor. 1:20) but await their consummation in the new heaven and new earth (Rev. 21–22). Thus, the claim that a promise has been fulfilled does not automatically imply that the promise has been exhausted. There may be additional “fulfillments” to the original promise.

In the Bible, gestures are made with either parts of the body or items, such as clothing and rings, directly connected to the body. For this reason, it makes sense to classify biblical gestures in relation to the different body parts that are identified with the gestures. It is, however, challenging to know where to draw a line on classifying a gesture. For example, a devious person is described in Prov. 6:13 as one “who winks maliciously with his eye, signals with his feet and motions with his fingers.” It is unclear whether this is a single gesture or multiple ones, and whether all signify different things or the same thing.

Head

Gestures that relate to the head range from simple head motions to semiviolent acts such as hair pulling. Simple head motions include lifting of one’s head in honor (Gen. 40:13), bowing one’s head in mourning (Ps. 35:14), tossing one’s head in mockery and derision (2 Kings 19:21), and shaking one’s head as insult (Ps. 22:7; Mark 15:29).

A common action is the shaving of the head, which can be for purification (Lev. 14:8–9; Num. 6:9; 8:7 [includes all body hair]), mourning (Deut. 21:11–13; Job 1:20; Isa. 15:2; Jer. 16:6; 47:5; 48:37; Ezek. 27:31; Amos 8:10; Mic. 1:16), remorse (Jer. 41:5), or shaming (Jer. 2:16). However, priests are forbidden from shaving their heads even in mourning (Lev. 21:5; Ezek. 44:20), while the high priest is to wear a turban on his head during sacrificial duties (Exod. 29:6).

Anointing of the head is done when a priest or king is installed (Exod. 29:7; Ps. 23:5) or simply as a sign of God’s goodness and blessing on a person (Eccles. 9:8). Blessing may also involve placing a hand on the head of the person being blessed (Gen. 48:14–18; Exod. 29:19), while the same gesture on the head of sacrificial animals is a symbolic means of transferring sin (Lev. 3:2, 8, 13; 4:4, 15, 24, 29, 33; 8:18, 22).

In the OT, a woman’s head can be shaved in mourning (Deut. 21:12–13; cf. Jer. 47:5), but in the NT, a shaved head can be a cause for disgrace (1 Cor. 11:5–6).

Face. Facial gestures range from expressions to actions such as touching or covering the face. A face can be downcast in anger (Gen. 4:5–6) or bowed to the ground in honor (Gen. 48:12), in dejection (Josh. 7:6), in humility (Ruth 2:10), in worship (2 Chron. 20:18; Ps. 138:2), in subjection, supplication, reverence (1 Sam. 20:41; 25:41; 28:14; 2 Sam. 14:4, 22; 18:28; 24:20; 1 Kings 1:23; 1 Chron. 21:20), or in dread (e.g., Moses before Yahweh [Exod. 3:6]).

The face can be covered or veiled as an indication of uncleanness (Lev. 13:45), in grief/mourning (2 Sam. 19:4; Ezek. 24:17), in resignation (1 Kings 19:13), with intent to deceive in adultery (Job 24:15), or in horror of judgment (Esther 7:8; Ezek. 12:6, 12). It can also be buried in the dust in remorse (Lam. 3:29).

God can be described as hiding or turning away his face against wickedness and evil (Deut. 31:18; 32:20; Ps. 34:16; Isa. 8:17; Jer. 33:5; Ezek. 7:22; 15:7; 20:46; 21:2) or in an act of withholding blessings (Job 13:15; Pss. 10:1; 13:1; 27:9; 30:7; 34:16; Isa. 54:8; 59:2; 64:7). God can also turn his face toward a place in judgment (Ezek. 4:3, 7; 6:2). In 1 Sam. 5:3–4 the idol of the Philistine god Dagon falls facedown before the ark of the covenant, apparently overpowered by Yahweh.

Acts of humiliation or dishonor can involve spitting in the face (Num. 12:14; Deut. 25:9; Job 17:6; 30:10; Isa. 50:6), slapping the face (1 Kings 22:24; 2 Chron. 18:23; Job 16:10; Lam. 3:30; Mic. 5:1), pulling a skirt up over someone’s face in shaming judgment (Jer. 13:26; Nah. 3:5), and hooking and dragging someone by the nose (2 Kings 19:28). Although being struck on the cheek is humiliating, Jesus instructs his disciples to “turn the other cheek” as a sign of resistance to violence (Matt. 5:39; Luke 6:29).

One can lift one’s face in worship (2 Kings 20:2; Job 22:26; Isa. 38:2) or in confidence (Job 11:15) and can fail to lift it in shame and disgrace (Ezra 9:6). Although the shaving of beards in mourning is common practice (Ezra 9:3; Isa. 15:2; Jer. 41:5; 48:37), the forced shaving of beards is an act of shaming and insulting (2 Sam. 10:4; 1 Chron. 19:4–5; Isa. 7:20; 50:6).

Eyes. Winking the eye is perceived as an evil, deceptive, or malicious act (Ps. 35:19; Prov. 6:13; 16:30). Eyes can be lifted up in worship and expectation (Pss. 121:1; 123:1).

Mouth. Pursed lips can characterize an evil person (Prov. 16:30), while a hand can be clapped over the mouth in awe and submission (Job 21:5; 40:4). Psalm 72:9 looks to the righteous king before whom the desert tribes will bow and whose “enemies lick the dust” in defeat.

Ears. An Israelite slave for life is to have a hole punched through his or her earlobe, held against a doorpost, with an awl (Exod. 21:6; Deut. 15:17). Blood is sprinkled on the lobe of the right ear for purification (Exod. 29:20; Lev. 8:23–24; 14:17), while supplication can be described as asking for the turning of an ear (2 Kings 19:16; Ps. 31:2). Turning one’s ear signifies paying attention or taking something to heart (Ps. 49:4; Prov. 4:20; 5:13).

Neck. The neck can be adorned (Song 1:10) as a sign of pride and honor (Gen. 41:42; Judg. 5:30; Prov. 1:9; Ezek. 16:11) or outstretched in arrogance (Ps. 75:5 TNIV: “Do not lift your horns against heaven; do not speak with outstretched neck”). Jeremiah put a yoke on his neck as a prophetic sign of the approaching Babylonian conquest (Jer. 27–28). While putting someone’s neck in a yoke is an act of triumphal conquest (Ps. 105:18), stepping on the neck of a subdued enemy is an act of subjugation and humiliation (Josh. 10:24).

Body

Nakedness in public is considered shameful (Gen. 9:22–23; Nah. 3:5; Rev. 3:18), so that it is sometimes pictured as part of divine judgment (Deut. 28:48; Isa. 47:2–3; Lam. 1:8; Mic. 1:11) or as a sign of promiscuity (Isa. 57:8; Ezek. 16:36). An unkempt body can be a sign of mourning, as it is for Mephibosheth (2 Sam. 19:24). A certain kind of body covering is a sign of marriage proposal or protection (Ezek. 16:8; 23:18; Hos. 2:9). Body dismembering, even in war, is an act of humiliation (2 Sam. 4:12).

Chest. In self-mortification, one can pound one’s chest in mourning (Ezek. 21:12) or in remorse (Jer. 31:19; Luke 18:13). The breasts of sacrificial animals are waved before God as a “wave offering” before being eaten (Exod. 29:26; Lev. 7:30; Num. 6:20).

Hand, arm. Hand gestures include motions such as lifting hands in worship, clapping hands in joy, and clapping a hand over one’s mouth in awe. The expression “outstretched arm” (Exod. 6:6; Deut. 4:34; 5:15; 7:19; 9:29; 11:2; 26:8; 1 Kings 8:42; 2 Kings 17:36; 2 Chron. 6:32; Ps. 136:12; Jer. 21:5; 27:5; 32:17, 21; Ezek. 20:33–34) indicates power, might, strength. It is often used of God to indicate his ability to defeat powerful armies and enemies. God is implored by the psalmist to lift his hand and act for the sake of the righteous (Ps. 10:12).

Since the right hand is the hand of power, the act of sitting at the right hand indicates being favored (1 Kings 2:19; Ps. 110:1; Matt. 22:44; Mark 12:36; Luke 20:43; Acts 2:35; Heb. 1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; 1 Pet. 3:22). When taking an oath, one places a hand under the thigh/crotch (Gen. 24:2; 47:29), most likely the right hand (see Gen. 48:14, 17–18; Lev. 8:23; 14:14).

Clapping the hands can be a sign of awe (Ezek. 6:11), malice, or remorse (25:6), while a bared arm can be a sign of judgment (4:7). Job claps his hand over his mouth in awe of God and in submission and repentance (Job 40:4–5).

Hands can be lifted in worship (1 Kings 8:22; 1 Tim. 2:8), to beseech (Ps. 28:2), to protect and bless (Ps. 10:12), in an oath (Deut. 32:40), or to harm (Exod. 24:11; 1 Sam. 24:6, 10; 2 Sam.1:14; 18:12).

Pilate washes his hands to proclaim his innocence over the death of Jesus (Matt. 27:24), while 1 Pet. 5:6 urges believers to humble themselves “under God’s mighty hand,” so that in due time they will be lifted up.

Buttocks. Exposure of the buttocks can serve as a humiliating insult and provocation, as happens to David’s men (2 Sam. 10:4; 1 Chron. 19:4) and Egyptian and Cushite captives (Isa. 20:4).

Leg. The leg or thigh is often a euphemism for the male reproductive organs, so that putting one’s hand under a thigh in oath (Gen. 24:2; 47:29) may involve actually grabbing the genitalia. Animal thighs are waved to God in offering before being consumed (Lev. 9:21; 10:14; Num. 6:20), while oaths administered to uncover adultery cause a guilty woman’s thighs to waste (Num. 5:2–27).

The most common gesture involving the knee is bowing, in worship or reverence (Deut. 33:3; Isa. 45:23; Rom. 11:4; 14:11; Phil. 2:10), in defeat (2 Sam. 22:40; Ps. 18:38; Isa. 60:14), in distress (Ps. 57:6), or in respect (1 Kings 1:31). In what seems to be a somewhat awkward position, Elijah puts his face between his knees in prayer (1 Kings 18:42).

Feet. Gestures involving the feet are probably the most common gestures in the Bible. Feet can be washed in hospitality (Gen. 18:4; 19:2; 24:32; 43:24; 1 Sam. 25:41), in ablution (Exod. 30:19, 21; 40:31), or in supplication (1 Sam. 25:41). Feet can be bathed in oil as a blessing (Deut. 33:24), uncovered in marriage proposals (Ezek. 16:8; cf. Ruth 3:4, 7), and stamped in remorse (Ezek. 25:6), and sandals can be removed from them in honor (Exod. 3:1–10) or disgrace (Deut. 25:9). The heavenly seraphs cover their feet in supplication before the throne of God (Isa. 6:2), while the feet of humans can signal deception (Prov. 6:13).

Enemies can be placed under one’s feet in subjugation (1 Kings 5:3; Pss. 8:6; 18:39; 45:5; 47:3; 110:1; Mal. 4:3; Rom. 16:20), have their feet shackled or ensnared (Job 13:27; 33:11; Pss. 25:15; 105:18), and be forced to lick the feet of victors in humiliation and defeat (Isa. 49:23). The righteous will bathe their feet in the blood of their enemies in revenge (Pss. 58:10; 68:23).

Those overwhelmed can grovel at the feet of the powerful (2 Kings 4:27, 37; Esther 8:3; Matt. 28:9; Mark 5:33; 7:25; Acts 10:25), while those emboldened can rise to their feet in confidence (Ezek. 2:1–2; 3:24; Dan. 8:18).

In the NT, dust can be shaken off one’s feet as an indication of divine judgment (Matt. 10:14; Mark 6:11; Luke 9:5), even as lying at a person’s feet is a recognition of authority/submission (Matt. 15:30; Mark 5:33; Luke 8:28, 35, 41, 47; 10:39; 17:16; Acts 4:37; 5:2). A woman publicly washes Jesus’ feet with her tears, wipes them with her hair, and kisses and perfumes them in what seems an act of love and repentance; but Jesus indicates that she has prepared his body for burial (Luke 7:38–46; John 11:2; 12:3). Jesus washes his disciples’ feet as instruction on servanthood and discipleship (John 13:5–14).

Fingers, Toes. Different fingers seem to have different roles assigned them. A finger sprinkles blood in cleansing (Lev. 4:6, 17, 25, 30, 34; 8:15; 9:9; 14:16; 16:14, 19; Num. 19:4), while blood on the tip of the right thumb and on the right big toe is for cleansing (Exod. 29:20; Lev. 8:23–24; 14:17, 25, 28).

One wears a signet ring as a sign of power (Esther 3:10) or a gesture of restoration and forgiveness (Luke 15:22). But fingers can also motion in deception (Prov. 6:13) or point in blame (Isa. 58:9). Jesus writes with his finger on the ground, apparently as a gesture of indifference to those pointing accusing fingers (John 8:6).

Clothes and Shoes

Garments. Garments attain significance as they are related to specific emotions. Wearing sackcloth and ashes in mourning is common (Gen. 37:34; Ezek. 7:18; 2 Sam. 3:31), while ripping garments in mourning is also frequently attested (Gen. 37:34; 44:13; Lev. 10:6; 21:10; Josh. 7:6; 2 Sam. 1:11; 3:31; 13:31; 1 Kings 21:27; 2 Kings 2:12; 19:1; Esther 4:1; Isa. 32:11; 37:1; Jer. 41:5).

Ripping someone’s clothing to expose nakedness (Ezek. 16:39; 2 Sam. 10:4) or pulling a person’s skirts up over the face (Jer. 13:26) is an act of shaming or insulting. But tearing one’s clothes off can be a sign of fury (Matt. 26:65). Persons with defiling diseases are expected to warn off others by wearing torn clothes and shouting, “Unclean! Unclean!” (Lev. 13:45).

By laying their clothes at Saul’s feet, the crowd may be acknowledging his authority in the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7:58).

Sandals. A woman can remove a man’s sandal in contempt (Deut. 25:5–10), while a sandal can be removed by a kinsman-redeemer to indicate giving up a right or as a transfer of property (Ruth 4:7–8). A sandal can also be removed in mourning (Ezek. 24:17) or be cast over a piece of land to claim ownership (Pss. 60:8; 108:9).

Prophetic Gestures

Prophetic gestures in the OT are mostly concerned with the call to repentance and approaching judgments upon failure to heed the warning. Jeremiah puts a yoke on his neck (Jer. 27–28; cf. Deut. 28:48), Ezekiel cooks with dung (Ezek. 4:12) and sleeps on his left side for 390 days and then on his right side for 40 days (4:5–6), Isaiah strips off his clothing (Isa. 20:2–3; 32:11), and Hosea marries an unfaithful wife (Hos. 1:1–3).

In the NT, Jesus cleanses the temple as an act of symbolic judgment (Matt. 21:12; Mark 11:15; John 2:15). He also breaks bread and drinks wine (Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 24:30, 35; Acts 2:46; 20:11; 27:35; 1 Cor. 11:24–25) and washes his disciples’ feet (John 13:1–13), thereby establishing symbolic Christian practices.

Author

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

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

Sources

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

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

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

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

Date

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

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

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

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

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

Structure

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

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

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

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

Outline

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

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

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

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

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

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

VI. The Death of Jesus (26:1–27:66)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Unique Contributions of Matthew

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

Use of the Old Testament

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus’ Relationship to Jewish Leaders

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

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

The KJV translation for a young girl, an unmarried woman or virgin, or a female servant. At least five Hebrew words are used to refer to such women. Betulah refers to an unmarried virgin or a young woman who has had no sexual experience (Gen. 24:16; Job 31:1; Exod. 22:16–17). A man who forcefully lay with such a woman was expected to marry her (Deut. 22:13–19). When David was old, a virgin was found to lie at his side to keep him warm (1 Kings 1:2). Israel as a nation is identified as a young virgin (Jer. 31:4). The second term is ’amah, translated “bondwoman,” “maidservant,” “maid,” “bondmaid,” “servant,” or “female servant” (Gen. 20:17; Exod. 2:5). The third is shipkhah, which refers to a female slave who is of close kinship to her master (Gen. 29:24). The fourth is na’arah, which is translated “unmarried girl” (Esther 2:4 [NIV: “young woman”]) or “servant” (Esther 4:4 [NIV: “female attendant”]; Ruth 2:23). The fifth is ’almah, which is translated “girl” (Exod. 2:8), “virgin” (Isa. 7:14), or “maiden” (Prov. 30:19 [NIV: “young woman”]).

In the NT, several Greek words are sometimes translated as “maiden” in the KJV. Parthenos refers to a “virgin,” male or female (Matt. 1:23; Acts 21:9; Rev. 14:4). Pais generally means “a young girl,” “maiden,” or “child” (Luke 8:51, 54). Paidiskē refers to a “female slave,” “servant maid,” or “servant girl” (Mark 14:66; Luke 12:45). The word korasion refers to a “girl” or “little girl” (Matt. 9:24–25). Nymphē refers to a “young wife” or “bride” (Luke 12:53; Rev. 21:2).

Hunting for food is a postdiluvian activity. In the original creation, humankind was allowed to eat only of plant life (Gen. 1:29); it was only with the re-creation of the earth that humans were explicitly permitted to eat animals: “Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything” (9:3). Therefore, it may be concluded that hunting as a means of survival had no significance for prediluvian humanity.

Nimrod was “a mighty hunter before the Lord; that is why it is said, ‘Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the Lord’ ” (Gen. 10:9). However, for many ancient interpreters, the proverbial saying was viewed with suspicion and was interpreted negatively as opposition against God (Philo, QG 2.82; L.A.B. 4:7; 6:13; Josephus, Ant. 1.113–14; Tg. Neof. 10:9; Frg. Tg. 10:9; Augustine, Civ. 16.4; Jerome, Qu. hebr. Gen. 10.18). Another memorable hunter is Esau, “a skillful hunter, a man of the open country” (Gen. 25:27). Before Esau could receive a blessing, his father requested that he go hunt game for him; however, the old and blind Isaac was tricked into blessing the wrong son (27:1–40).

In ancient times, hunting was not an activity limited to providing food or acquiring other resources such as materials for clothing. There is evidence of hunting as a royal sport. The Assyrian kings were famous hunters of lions, wild bulls, elephants, and other animals. By the seventh century BC, Assyrian kings hunted in special game reserves. For the Assyrians, the killing of wild beasts such as lions symbolized the duty of the king as a guardian of civilization. Royal hunting does not appear to have been a practice in Israel, although such a possibility may not be completely ruled out. The young David’s encounter with lion and bear is cited to some extent for self-exaltation purposes and even more so to portray him as a fearless shepherd worthy of shepherding Israel (1 Sam. 17:34–37).

Hunters used various methods to catch or kill their prey: weapons such as quiver, bow, spear, sling, and club (Gen. 27:3; cf. Isa. 7:24), pits and various snares and gins (Pss. 35:7; 91:3; 2 Sam. 23:20; Isa. 24:17; Jer. 48:43; Amos 3:5). Bird hunting was also a common practice, and snares often were used to make a catch (Pss. 91:3; 124:7; Prov. 1:17; 6:5; Eccles. 9:12; Amos 3:5).

The Bible is full of teeming creatures and swarming things. These creatures, insects, often play significant roles in the stories and the events described in them. From the first chapter of the Bible to the very last book, these flying, creeping, hopping, and crawling things are prominent.

Terms for Insects

Insects are described in the Bible with both general and specific terms. In the OT, there are three general terms for insects and twenty terms used to refer to specific types of insects. In the NT, two different types of insects are referenced: gnats and locusts.

The two most common general terms for insects are variously translated. Terms and phrases used to describe them include “living creatures” (Gen. 1:20), “creatures that move along the ground” (Gen. 1:24–26; 6:7, 20; 7:8, 14, 23; 8:17, 19; Lev. 5:2; Ezek. 38:20; Hos. 2:18), that which “moves” (Gen. 9:3), “swarming things” (Lev. 11:10), “flying insects” (Lev. 11:20–21, 23; Deut. 14:19), “creatures” (Lev. 11:43), “crawling things” (Lev. 22:5; Ezek. 8:10), “reptiles” (1 Kings 4:33), “teeming creatures” (Ps. 104:25), “small creatures” (Ps. 148:10), and “sea creatures” (Hab. 1:14). The other general term for insects is used with reference to swarms of insects, typically flies (Exod. 8:21–22, 24, 29; Pss. 78:45; 105:31). Specific insects named in Scripture are listed below.

Ants. Ants are used in Proverbs as an example of and encouragement toward wisdom. In 6:6 ants serve as an example for sluggards to reform their slothful ways. Also, in 30:25 ants serve as an example of creatures that, despite their diminutive size, are wise enough to make advance preparations for the long winter.

Bees. Bees are used both literally and figuratively in Scripture. Judges 14:8 refers to honeybees, the product of which becomes the object of Samson’s riddle. The other three uses of bees in the OT are figurative of swarms of enemies against God’s people (Deut. 1:44; Ps. 118:12; Isa. 7:18).

Fleas. Fleas are referenced in the OT only by David to indicate his insignificance in comparison with King Saul (1 Sam. 24:14; 26:20). The irony of the comparison becomes clear with David’s later ascendancy.

Flies. The plague of flies follows that of gnats on Egypt (Exod. 8:20–31). Although the gnats are never said to have left Egypt, the flies are removed upon Moses’ prayer. In Eccles. 10:1 the stench of dead flies is compared to the impact that folly can have on the wise. In Isa. 7:18 flies represent Egypt being summoned by God as his avenging agents on Judah’s sin. In addition, one of the gods in Ekron was named “Baal-Zebub,” which means “lord of the flies” (2 Kings 1:2–3, 6, 16). The reference to Satan in the NT using a similar name is likely an adaptation of the OT god of Ekron (Matt. 10:25; 12:24, 27; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15, 18–19).

Gnats. Gnats are distinguished from flies in the OT, though the distinction is not always apparent. Gnats are employed by God in the third plague on Egypt (Exod. 8:16–19), while flies form the means of punishment in the fourth plague. The two are listed together in Ps. 105:31 and appear parallel, though the former may be a reference to a swarm. Gnats were also used by Jesus to illustrate the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and the scribes (Matt. 23:24).

Hornets. The Bible uses hornets in Scripture as an agent of God’s destruction. The term occurs three times in the OT. In each occurrence these stinging insects refer to God’s expulsion of the Canaanites from the land that God promised to his people. The first two times, Exod. 23:28 and Deut. 7:20, hornets are used in reference to a promise of what God will do; the third time, Josh. 24:12, they illustrate what God did.

Locusts. Of particular interest is the use of locusts in the Bible. The term or a similar nomenclature occurs close to fifty times in the NIV. Locusts demonstrate a number of characteristics in Scripture. First, they are under God’s control (Exod. 10:13–19). As such, they have no king (Prov. 30:27). They serve God’s purposes. Second, locusts often occur in very large numbers or swarms (Judg. 6:5; Jer. 46:23; Nah. 3:15). At times, their numbers can be so large as to cause darkness in the land (Exod. 10:15). Third, in large numbers these insects have been known to ravage homes, devour the land, devastate fields, and debark trees (Exod. 10:12–15; Deut. 28:38; 1 Kings 8:37; 2 Chron. 7:13; Pss. 78:46; 105:34; Isa. 33:4; Joel 1:4–7). Due to their fierceness, they were compared to horses (Rev. 9:7). Fourth, locusts hide at night (Nah. 3:17). Finally, certain types of locusts were used as food.

Moths. Moths are referred to seven times in the OT and four times in the NT. Job uses moths to illustrate the fragility of the unrighteous before God (4:19) and the impermanence of their labors (27:18). The other references to moths in Scripture present them as the consumers of the wealth (garments) and pride of humankind as a means of God’s judgment (Job 13:28; Ps. 39:11; Isa. 50:9; 51:8; Hos. 5:12; Matt. 6:19–20; Luke 12:33; James 5:2).

Functions of Insects in Scripture

As agents in God’s judgment. Insects serve a variety of functions in Scripture. Most notably, insects serve as agents of judgment from God. The OT indicates how insects were used as judgment on both Israel and their enemies.

Moses warned of God’s judgment for Israel’s violation of the covenant. He advised Israel that as a consequence of their sin, they would expend much labor in the field but harvest little, because the locusts would consume them (Deut. 28:38).

Solomon, in his prayer of dedication at the temple, beseeched God regarding judgment that he might send in the form of grasshoppers to besiege the land. He asked that when the people of God repent and pray, God would hear and forgive (2 Chron. 6:26–30). God similarly responded by promising that when he “command[s] locusts to devour the land” as judgment for sin, and his people humble themselves and pray, he will heal and forgive (2 Chron. 7:13–14; cf. 1 Kings 8:37).

The psalmist reminded Israel of God’s wonderful works in their past, one of which was his use of insects as a means of his judgment (Ps. 78:45–46; cf. 105:34).

Joel 1:4 and 2:25 describe God’s judgment on Israel for their unfaithfulness in successive waves of intensity (cf. Deut. 28:38, 42; 2 Chron. 6:28; Amos 4:9–10; 7:1–3). The devastation led to crop failure, famine, destruction of vines and fig trees, and great mourning. The severity of the judgment is described as being unlike anything anyone in the community had ever experienced (Joel 1:2–3).

Locusts are the subject of one of the visions of the prophet Amos. In the vision, God showed him the destructive power of these insects as a means of judgment. Upon seeing the vision, the prophet interceded for the people, and God relented (Amos 7:1–3).

Insects were also used as judgments on Israel’s enemies. In the plagues on Egypt, insects were the agents of the third, fourth, and eighth plagues. The third plague (Exod. 8:16–19) was gnats. Interestingly, this was the first of Moses’ signs that the magicians of Pharaoh could not reproduce. Their response to the Egyptian king was that this must be the “finger of God.” There is no record of the gnats ever leaving Egypt, unlike the other plagues.

The fourth plague was flies (Exod. 8:20–32). Here the Bible specifically indicates a distinction between the land of Goshen, where the Israelites dwelled, and the rest of the land of Egypt. The flies covered all of Egypt except Goshen. This plague led to Pharaoh’s first offer of compromise. Once Moses prayed and the flies left Egypt, Pharaoh hardened his heart.

The eighth plague was in the form of locusts (Exod. 10:1–20). In response to this plague, Pharaoh’s own officials complained to him, beseeching him to let Israel leave their country lest it be entirely destroyed. The threat of this plague led to Pharaoh’s second offer of compromise. Once the locusts began to devastate the land of Egypt, Pharaoh confessed his sin before God, but as soon as the locusts were removed, his heart again became hardened. Thus, three of the ten plagues on Egypt were in the form of insects.

At the end of a series of “woe” passages, the prophet Isaiah proclaimed God’s judgment against the enemies of his people because of their oppression. In the end, those who plundered will themselves be plundered, as if by a “swarm of locusts” (Isa. 33:1–4; cf. Jer. 51:14, 27).

Insects were also used as judgment on people who dwelled in the land of Israel prior to Israel’s occupation. Both before and after the event took place, the Bible describes how God sent hornets to help drive out the occupants of the land of Canaan in preparation for Israel’s arrival. This is described as part of God’s judgment on these nations for their sins against him (Exod. 23:28; Deut. 7:20; Josh. 24:12).

As food. Insects also are mentioned in Scripture as food. Certain types of locusts are listed as clean and eligible for consumption. The NT describes the diet of John the Baptist, which consisted of locusts and wild honey—a diet entirely dependent on insects (Matt. 3:4; Mark 1:6). The OT also notes Samson enjoying the labor of bees as food (Judg. 14:8–9).

Used figuratively. Most often, insects are used figuratively in Scripture. They are used in the proverbs of Scripture to illustrate wisdom. The sages wrote about ants (Prov. 6:6; 30:25), locusts (Prov. 30:27), and even dead flies (Eccles. 10:1) both to extol wisdom and to encourage its development in humankind.

Another figurative use of insects is in the riddle about bees and honey posed by Samson to the Philistines (Judg. 14:12–18). As noted above, Samson ate honey (Judg. 14:8–9; cf. 1 Sam. 14:25–29, 43). Also, Scripture describes the promised land as a place of “milk and honey.”

Insects also are used to symbolize pursuing enemies (Deut. 1:44; Ps. 118:12; Isa. 7:18), innumerable forces (Judg. 6:5; 7:12; Ps. 105:34; Jer. 46:23; Joel 2:25), insignificance (Num. 13:33; 1 Sam. 24:14; 26:20; Job 4:19; 27:18; Ps. 109:23; Eccles. 12:5; Isa. 40:22), vulnerability (Job 4:19), God’s incomparable nature (Job 39:20), the brevity of life (Ps. 109:23), wisdom and organization (Prov. 30:27), and an invading army (Isa. 7:18; Jer. 51:14, 27), and they are employed in a taunt against Israel’s enemies (Nah. 3:15–17), a lesson on hypocrisy (Matt. 23:24), and an image of eschatological judgment (Rev. 9:4–11).

Scriptural Truths about Insects

1. Insects are part of God’s creation. In view of all the uses of insects in Scripture, several key truths emerge. First, insects are a part of the totality of God’s creation. The very first chapter of the Bible uses one of the general terms for insects as part of God’s creative activity on the sixth day of creation (Gen. 1:24). After God reviewed the creation on that day, his assessment of it, including the insects, was that it was “good” (1:25).

2. Insects are under God’s control. A second scriptural truth related to insects in the Bible is that they are under God’s control. In Deut. 7:20 God promised to send hornets ahead of the children of Israel to prepare the promised land for their arrival. Also, in Joel 2:25, when God promised to repair the damage to the land caused by the locusts, he described them as “my great army that I sent.” Thus, the picture emerges that what God has created, he alone reserves the authority to control.

3. Insects are cared for by God. A final truth regarding insects in Scripture is that God takes care of them. Just as Jesus explained God’s care for the birds of the air (Matt. 7:26), the psalmist explained that all of God’s creation, specifically insects, “look to you to give them their food at the proper time” (Ps. 104:25–27). The conclusion of the psalmist is appropriate for all of God’s creation: “When you hide your face, they are terrified; when you take away their breath, they die and return to the dust. When you send your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the ground” (104:29–30). Thus, in the end, God creates, God controls, and God cares—a lesson that all of God’s creation shares.

The road to the Washerman’s Field (NIV: “Launderer’s Field” in Isa. 7:3; 36:2) locates where Ahaz was inspecting Jerusalem’s water supply in preparation for an attack by Syria and Israel (Isa. 7:3), and where the Assyrian commander stood (2 Kings 18:17; Isa. 36:2). Jerusalem was supplied by a series of pools connected by channels. The launderer’s occupation of cleaning cloth required much water (cf. Mal. 3:2). The field was located outside the city, at its southern end.

Patience is a moral attribute that God possesses and that humans may possess. One who has patience allows time to pass while maintaining a positive disposition, often in the face of suffering (Hab. 3:16; 2 Tim. 3:10–11; James 5:10), as the KJV translation “longsuffering” implies (cf. Prov. 14:29 NASB: “slow to anger”). The Scriptures universally speak of patience as an admirable quality and associate patience with other virtues, such as inner peace (Ps. 37:7), wisdom (Prov. 19:11), persuasiveness (Prov. 25:15), humility (Eccles. 7:8), and kindness (Rom. 2:4; 1 Cor. 13:4).

Numerous passages praise God’s patience. Humans try (Isa. 7:13) and show contempt for (Rom. 2:4) God’s patience, sometimes by refusing to be patient with others even though they themselves have received mercy from God (Matt. 18:23–35). Nonetheless, God displays his patience by granting them eternal life through faith in Christ (1 Tim. 1:16). In fact, God has patiently delayed destroying the world because he is compassionate and wants all to come to repentance (2 Pet. 3:9). God’s patience is evident even toward those who are destined for destruction (Rom. 9:22; 1 Pet. 3:20).

Just as God is patient, he imparts patience to the Christian through his Holy Spirit (Gal. 5:22). Like Abraham, the prophets, and any farmer, Christians are to exhibit patience, bearing with people both inside and outside the church (Eph. 4:2; 1 Thess. 5:14–15) as they wait eagerly for Christ’s return (Heb. 6:12–15; James 5:7–10). Those in Christian leadership must model patience and encourage others with patience (2 Tim. 3:10; 4:2).

The names of God given in the Bible are an important means of revelation about his character and works. The names come from three sources: God himself, those who encounter him in the biblical record, and the biblical writers. This article is concerned mainly with the names that occur in the OT, though the NT will be referenced when helpful.

In the Bible the meaning of names is often significant and points to the character of the person so named. As might be expected, this is especially true for God. The names that he gives to himself always are a form of revelation; the names that humans give to God often are a form of testimony.

Yahweh: The Lord

Pronunciation. Unquestionably, for OT revelation the most important name is “(the) Lord.” In English Bibles this represents the name declared by God to Moses at the burning bush (“I am who I am” [Exod. 3:13–15]) and the related term used elsewhere in the OT; in Hebrew this term consists of the four consonants YHWH and is therefore known as the Tetragrammaton (“four letters”). Hebrew does not count vowels as part of its alphabet; in biblical times one simply wrote the consonants of a word and the reader supplied the correct vowels by knowing the vocabulary, grammar, and context. However, to avoid violating the commandment in the Decalogue that prohibits the misuse of God’s name (Exod. 20:7; Deut. 5:11), the Jews stopped pronouncing it. Consequently, no one today knows its correct original pronunciation, but the best evidence available suggests “Yahweh,” which has become the conventional pronunciation (consider the Hebrew word “hallelujah,” which actually is “hallelu-Yah,” hence “praise the Lord”). In ancient Jewish tradition, “Adonai” (“my Lord”) was substituted for “Yahweh.” In fact, when Hebrew eventually developed a vowel notation system, instead of the vowels for “Yahweh,” the vowels for “Adonai” were indicated whenever YHWH appeared in the biblical text, as a reminder. Combining the consonants YHWH with the vowels of “Adonai” yields something like “Yehowah,” which is the origin of the familiar (but mistaken and nonexistent) “Jehovah.” English Bibles typically use “Lord” (small capital letters) for “Yahweh,” and “Lord” (regular letters) for “Adonai,” which distinguishes the two.

Meaning. More vital than the matter of the pronunciation of YHWH is the question of its meaning. There seem to be two main opinions. One sees YHWH as denoting eternal self-existence, partly because it is suggested by the grammar of Exod. 3:14 (the words “I am” use a form of the Hebrew verb that suggests being without beginning or end) and partly because that is the meaning Jesus apparently ascribes to it in John 8:58. The other opinion, suggested by usage, is that YHWH indicates dynamic, active, divine presence: God’s being present in a special way to act on someone’s behalf (e.g., Gen. 26:28; 39:2–3; Josh. 6:27; 1 Sam. 18:12–14). This idea also appears in the episode of the burning bush (Exod. 3:12): when Moses protests his inadequacy to confront Pharaoh, God assures him of his presence, a reality noted with other prophets (1 Sam. 3:19; Jer. 1:8).

Perhaps the best points of reference for understanding the meaning of YHWH are God’s own proclamations. In addition to Exod. 3:13–15, at least two other passages in Exodus give God’s commentary (as it were) about the meaning of his name. An important one is Exod. 34:5–7. A key passage in the theology proper of ancient Israel, its themes echo in later OT Scripture (Num. 14:18–19; Ps. 103:7–12; Jon. 4:2). What is noteworthy about the texts cited is that all of them say something remarkable about the grace of God. This fits, for the revelation of Exod. 34:5–7 is given in the context of covenant renewal after the incident of the golden calf. Moses invokes God’s name in the Numbers text to avoid catastrophic judgment when the Israelites refuse to enter the promised land. The psalm text picks up this theme and connects it with God’s revelation of his ways to the chosen people. Jonah, remarkably, affirms that the same grace extends even toward a wicked Gentile city such as Nineveh.

Another such passage is Exod. 6:2–8. Here God reaffirms his redemptive purpose for captive Israel, despite the fact that Moses’ first encounter with Pharaoh has not gone well. God assures the prophet that he has remembered his covenant with the patriarchs, whom he says did not know him as “Yahweh,” which probably means that the patriarchs did not experience him in the way or character that their descendants would in the exodus event (though it is possible to translate the Hebrew here as a rhetorical question with an affirmative idea: “And indeed, by my name Yahweh did I not make myself known to them?”). God then proceeds to outline the redemptive experience in its fullness: deliverance from bondage, reception into a covenant relationship, and possession of the land promised to their ancestors (vv. 6–8). The statement is bracketed with this declaration: “I am the Lord” (vv. 2, 8). One stated purpose of this redemptive work is that Israel might come to understand this (v. 7). This is important to note because a central theme of Exodus as a book is the identity of the God of Israel. This concern prompts Moses to ask for God’s name at the burning bush (3:13), and this contempt for the God of the enslaved Hebrews causes Pharaoh to be dismissive at his first meeting with Moses and Aaron (5:2). Moses asks with the concern of a seeker and receives one of the most profound declarations of God’s identity in the Bible. Pharaoh asks with the contempt of a scorner and receives one of the most powerful displays of God’s identity in the Bible (the plagues). The contrast is both striking and instructive. The meaning of God’s name, then, is revealed in works as well as words, and his purpose is that not just his people but all peoples may come to understand who he is. Yet another majestic statement in the book of Exodus (9:13–16) makes this abundantly clear.

Based on this pattern of usage, the name “Yahweh” seems to signify especially the active presence of God to bless, deliver, or otherwise aid his people. Where this presence is absent, there is no success, victory, protection, or peace (Num. 14:39–45; Josh. 7:10–12; Judg. 16:20; 1 Sam. 16:13–14). The message that God not only is but also is present to save and deliver may well be the most important truth communicated in the OT, and it is only natural to see its ultimate embodiment in the person and work of Christ (Isa. 7:14; cf. Matt. 1:21–23).

Name used in combination. The name “Yahweh” also is used in combination with other terms. After God grants a military victory to Israel over the Amalekites, Moses names a commemorative altar “Yahweh Nissi,” meaning “the Lord is my Banner” (Exod. 17:15). In Ezekiel’s temple vision Jerusalem is called “Yahweh Shammah,” meaning “the Lord is there” (Ezek. 48:35). A familiar expression is “the Lord of hosts,” which is generally comparable to the expression “commander in chief” used in American culture (cf. 1 Kings 22:19–23).

Elohim

This is the first term for God encountered in the Bible, right in the opening verse. It is a more generic term, denoting deity in contrast to humans or angels. “Elohim” is a plural form; the singular terms “El” and “Eloah” are used occasionally, particularly in poetic texts. “El” is a common term in the biblical world; in fact, it is the name for the father of Baal in the Canaanite religion. This may explain why the Bible commonly uses the plural form, to distinguish the one true God, the God of Israel, from his pagan rivals. Others explain the plural form as a “plural of majesty” or “plural of intensity,” though it is uncertain just what this would mean. Some see the foundation for NT revelation of the Trinity (Gen. 1:26–27; 11:6–7; cf. John 17:20–22), but this is unlikely. The plural form also can serve simply as a common noun, referring to pagan deities (Exod. 12:12), angels (Ps. 97:7, arguably), or even human authorities (Exod. 22:28, possibly).

“El” also occurs in combination with other descriptive terms. The best known is “El Shaddai,” meaning “God Almighty” (Gen. 17:1). The precise meaning of “Shaddai” is uncertain, but it seems to have the notion of “great/powerful one.” The distressed Hagar, caught, comforted, and counseled by the mysterious personage at a well, calls God “El Roi,” which means “the God who sees me” (Gen. 16:13). One of the most exalted expressions to describe God is “El Elyon,” meaning “God Most High.” This title seems to have particular reference to God as the owner and master of creation (Gen. 14:18–20).

Adonai

As noted above, this common word meaning simply “(my) lord/master” is used regularly in place of the personal name of God revealed to Moses in Exod. 3:14. And in the OT of most English Bibles this is indicated by printing “Lord” as opposed to “Lord” (using small capital letters). However, “Adonai” is used of God in some noteworthy instances, such as Isaiah’s lofty vision of God exalted in Isa. 6 and the prophecy of Immanuel in Isa. 7:14. In time, this became the preferred term for referring to God, and the LXX reflected this by using the Greek word kyrios (“lord”) for Yahweh. This makes the ease with which NT writers transfer the use of the term to Jesus (e.g., 1 Cor. 12:3) a strong indication of their Christology.

A name whose precise translation is disputed but means something close to “the spoil speeds, the prey hastens.” God commanded Isaiah to give one of his sons this name as part of a prophecy that Judah would soon be delivered from the Syro-Ephraimite threat (Isa. 8:1–4). Specifically, the prophecy assured Judah that this turn of events would occur before Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz could speak. This prophecy dealt with the same threat as in Isa. 7 but added the assurance that the promised deliverance would take place swiftly. The prophecy found fulfillment when Assyria plundered Ephraim in 733 BC and conquered Damascus in 732 BC. The birth of Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz can therefore be dated with some confidence to 734 BC.

The KJV translation for a young girl, an unmarried woman or virgin, or a female servant. At least five Hebrew words are used to refer to such women. Betulah refers to an unmarried virgin or a young woman who has had no sexual experience (Gen. 24:16; Job 31:1; Exod. 22:16–17). A man who forcefully lay with such a woman was expected to marry her (Deut. 22:13–19). When David was old, a virgin was found to lie at his side to keep him warm (1 Kings 1:2). Israel as a nation is identified as a young virgin (Jer. 31:4). The second term is ’amah, translated “bondwoman,” “maidservant,” “maid,” “bondmaid,” “servant,” or “female servant” (Gen. 20:17; Exod. 2:5). The third is shipkhah, which refers to a female slave who is of close kinship to her master (Gen. 29:24). The fourth is na’arah, which is translated “unmarried girl” (Esther 2:4 [NIV: “young woman”]) or “servant” (Esther 4:4 [NIV: “female attendant”]; Ruth 2:23). The fifth is ’almah, which is translated “girl” (Exod. 2:8), “virgin” (Isa. 7:14), or “maiden” (Prov. 30:19 [NIV: “young woman”]).

In the NT, several Greek words are sometimes translated as “maiden” in the KJV. Parthenos refers to a “virgin,” male or female (Matt. 1:23; Acts 21:9; Rev. 14:4). Pais generally means “a young girl,” “maiden,” or “child” (Luke 8:51, 54). Paidiskē refers to a “female slave,” “servant maid,” or “servant girl” (Mark 14:66; Luke 12:45). The word korasion refers to a “girl” or “little girl” (Matt. 9:24–25). Nymphē refers to a “young wife” or “bride” (Luke 12:53; Rev. 21:2).

The KJV translation for a young girl, an unmarried woman or virgin, or a female servant. At least five Hebrew words are used to refer to such women. Betulah refers to an unmarried virgin or a young woman who has had no sexual experience (Gen. 24:16; Job 31:1; Exod. 22:16–17). A man who forcefully lay with such a woman was expected to marry her (Deut. 22:13–19). When David was old, a virgin was found to lie at his side to keep him warm (1 Kings 1:2). Israel as a nation is identified as a young virgin (Jer. 31:4). The second term is ’amah, translated “bondwoman,” “maidservant,” “maid,” “bondmaid,” “servant,” or “female servant” (Gen. 20:17; Exod. 2:5). The third is shipkhah, which refers to a female slave who is of close kinship to her master (Gen. 29:24). The fourth is na’arah, which is translated “unmarried girl” (Esther 2:4 [NIV: “young woman”]) or “servant” (Esther 4:4 [NIV: “female attendant”]; Ruth 2:23). The fifth is ’almah, which is translated “girl” (Exod. 2:8), “virgin” (Isa. 7:14), or “maiden” (Prov. 30:19 [NIV: “young woman”]).

In the NT, several Greek words are sometimes translated as “maiden” in the KJV. Parthenos refers to a “virgin,” male or female (Matt. 1:23; Acts 21:9; Rev. 14:4). Pais generally means “a young girl,” “maiden,” or “child” (Luke 8:51, 54). Paidiskē refers to a “female slave,” “servant maid,” or “servant girl” (Mark 14:66; Luke 12:45). The word korasion refers to a “girl” or “little girl” (Matt. 9:24–25). Nymphē refers to a “young wife” or “bride” (Luke 12:53; Rev. 21:2).

Although essentially characterized by bearing offspring, a mother is associated with much more in the Bible. Especially prominent are the characteristic ways in which a mother relates to her children: she tends to their needs (1 Thess. 2:7), looks after their welfare (1 Kings 3:16–27), comforts them (Ps. 131:2), and instructs them (Prov. 1:8; 31:1).

Motherhood is held in high regard. Bearing a child is an occasion for rejoicing (Gen. 4:1; Ps. 113:9). A virtuous and industrious mother is praised by her children and husband alike (Prov. 31:28). The Bible describes a mother both crowning a king (Song 3:11) and sitting beside his throne (1 Kings 2:19). The death of a mother brings extreme sorrow (Gen. 24:67; Ps. 35:14). Furthermore, God’s promises are often associated with the birth of a child (e.g., Gen. 3:15; 12:2–3; Judg. 13:3; Isa. 7:14). Mary is blessed among women as the mother of Jesus Christ (Luke 1:42–45). Finally, the Bible protects the dignity of a mother as it does that of the father. The law requires honor and reverence for both father and mother (Exod. 20:12; Lev. 19:3; Deut. 5:16) and condemns to death those who strike or curse either parent (Exod. 21:15, 17; Lev. 20:9).

There is also great concern that adult children look after the welfare of their parents as a means of honoring them. David makes provisions for his parents as he flees from Saul (1 Sam. 22:3–4). Jesus condemns the Pharisees and the scribes for taking the resources due their parents and offering them as a gift to God instead (Matt. 15:4–6). Even Jesus’ final act upon the cross is to ensure the welfare of his mother by defining her relationship with the Beloved Disciple as mother and son (John 19:26–27). On the other hand, Jesus makes clear that concern for one’s family is subordinate to discipleship to him (Matt. 10:37; Mark 3:35; Luke 14:26).

The word “mother” also carries symbolic or metaphorical senses. Sometimes the “mother” is a fitting example of other things or persons like it, such as Babylon the Great as the mother of prostitutes and earthly abominations (Rev. 17:5). In the extended analogy between Hosea’s marriage and God’s relationship to Israel, the nation is called a “mother,” and its inhabitants are her “children” (Hos. 2:4; 4:5; cf. Isa. 50:1; Jer. 50:12). The image of a mother may also refer to a large city (2 Sam. 20:19; Gal. 4:26).

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

The Nile River is the lifeblood of Egypt and was pivotal for the life and culture of the ancient Egyptians. Annual flooding began during late June or August, inundating the land with water, bringing in nutrient-rich silts, and washing away salts from the soil. The annual flooding made the Nile Valley a fertile region, especially suited for growing cereal grains. The Nile floods also replenished the marshes, an important habitat for fish and birds and another important resource to the ancient Egyptians. Because of the meager annual rainfall in the region, agriculture was virtually impossible outside the Nile floodplains. Therefore, Egyptian settlement patterns tended to cling close to the river. However, fluctuations in the Nile’s flood levels could bring devastation. An unusually low flood would mean poor crop yields for the year, and an unusually high flood could destroy homes, livestock, and property. Such variations in flood levels are alluded to as the cause for the seven years of famine foreboded in the pharaoh’s dream in Gen. 41:1–4, 17–21.

The Nile is fed by three main tributaries. The Blue Nile and the Atbara originate in Ethiopia, while the White Nile carries its waters from Lake Victoria in northern Tanzania. All three rivers converge before the fifth of six cataracts, or rapids, along the Nile. These cataracts, numbered from north to south, acted as a natural barrier against hostile incursions from the south.

The Nile flows from south to north, but a prevailing wind along the Nile flows from north to south. These two factors mean that transportation north of the cataracts, where the Nile is calm for about 530 miles, was possible in both directions. Travelers could float without a sail, using the current to bring them northward (downstream), or ride the prevailing winds by use of the sail in order to travel southward (upstream). In Egyptian hieroglyphics, northward travel was illustrated via a symbol of a boat with a folded sail and a steering oar, while southward travel was shown as a boat with its sail unfurled.

To the ancient Egyptians, the Nile Valley was thought of as two halves. “Upper Egypt” referred to the part of the Nile south of the Nile Delta, while “Lower Egypt” referred to the Nile Delta itself. The ancient Egyptians oriented their world with regard to the Nile, not, as moderns do, by compass directions.

The Nile is mentioned frequently within the Bible, especially concerning Joseph and Moses, but also within the prophecies of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Amos, and Zechariah. Apart from the aforementioned reference in Gen. 41, the Nile is also referenced as the river into which Pharaoh ordered the Israelite infant boys be thrown, which led to Moses’ fortuitous float into the arms of Pharaoh’s daughter (Exod. 1:22; 2:3, 5–6, 10; Acts 7:22). Several plagues are also associated with the Nile (Exod. 4:9; 7:15–24; 8:3–11, 20; 17:5; Ps. 78:44–45). In 2 Kings 19:24 Sennacherib brags that he dried up the streams of Egypt. Prophetic references to the Nile occur in Isa. 7:18; 19:5–8; 23:3, 10; Jer. 46:7–8; Ezek. 29:3–10; Amos 7:8; 9:5; Zech. 10:11.

Divine pronouncements given to humankind that are either unsolicited (Isa. 7:3–9; Hag. 1:2–11; Zech. 12:1) or a response to an inquiry (2 Kings 8:8). It was common practice throughout the ancient Near East to seek pronouncements from deities and to identify holy sites where sacred individuals could query the deities (e.g., the shrine of Apollo at Delphi). How much time elapsed between the transmission of an oracle and its inscription is uncertain. Inscriptions from the surrounding Near Eastern milieu attest that messages received from a deity often were transcribed immediately upon reception, with the prophet’s name attached.

Reception and Delivery of Oracles

The Hebrew word massa’ (derived from nasa’, “to lift, take, carry”), variously translated “oracle” (Isa. 17:1; 19:1; 21:1; 30:6), “burden” (Isa. 17:1 JPS, KJV), or “prophecy” (Prov. 30:1; 31:1 KJV), is used in this figurative sense primarily in prophetic speech (Prov. 30:1; 31:1 are the exceptions) to refer to threatening pronouncements against Israel (Hab. 1:1; Zech. 12:1; Mal. 1:1), its neighbors (Isa. 13:1; 14:28; 15:1; Nah. 1:1), or an individual (2 Kings 9:25; 2 Chron. 24:27). Although the word itself is used infrequently, the prophetic activity of delivering divine pronouncements was prevalent throughout Israel’s history, rising in prominence during the monarchy and ceasing at the beginning of the intertestamental period.

Priests, judges (Deut. 17:9), and prophets (1 Sam. 9:9) could be the recipients and deliverers of divine oracles, although as the duties of these offices became more differentiated over time, delivery of oracles became more the province of the prophet (2 Kings 22:11–14; Jer. 21:2). A few oracles found in the OT are attributed to non-Israelites (Balaam [Num. 22–24]; Agur [Prov. 30:1]; King Lemuel [Prov. 31:1]). The Israelites were commanded to seek Yahweh (Isa. 55:6; Hos. 10:12), and they (Isa. 9:13) and their leaders (Jer. 10:21) were condemned both for failure to do so and for their dismissive response to a prophetic oracle once it had been delivered, whether solicited (Ezek. 33:30–32) or not (Zech. 7:12).

Prophets were often sought to inquire about obtaining an oracle (1 Sam. 9:9; 2 Kings 3:11; 22:13) during times of crisis or need. Such oracles were for the benefit of either an individual (Exod. 18:15; 2 Kings 8:8) or the nation (1 Kings 22:5; 2 Kings 3:11; 2 Chron. 18:6) and were sought by commoners (Gen. 25:22; Exod. 18:15; Ezek. 33:30), elders (Ezek. 14:1–3; 20:1; see also 8:1), royalty (1 Kings 14:5; 22:5–8; 2 Kings 22:18; 2 Chron. 26:5), army officials (Jer. 42:1–3), and foreigners (2 Kings 8:7; Isa. 14:32). Prophetic response to oracular inquiry was not automatic. Deliverance of an oracle after an inquiry could be immediate (Jer. 37:17), delayed for an extended period of time (Jer. 42:7 [ten days]), or the prophet could refuse to deliver an oracle (Jer. 23:33; Ezek. 14:1). A previous oracle could be superseded (Isa. 38 [compare v. 1 with vv. 4–6]). Various commodities could be used for payment, including silver (1 Sam. 9:7–8), food (1 Kings 14:3), and foreign goods (2 Kings 8:7–9).

Oracles could be pronounced publicly in various places, including the palace (2 Kings 20:4–5), the temple (Jer. 7:2; 26:2), the city gates (1 Kings 22:10; 2 Chron. 18:9), the roadside (1 Kings 20:38–43), or privately to individuals, including royalty (Jer. 37:17), officials (Isa. 22:15), and foreigners (Jer. 39:15–17). There are several mentions in Scripture of oracles that are not part of the canonical record (e.g., 2 Chron. 24:27).

Oracular pronouncements could be brief (1 Kings 17:1) or lengthy (the books of Nahum and Malachi), and they consisted of a variety of genres, including satire (Isa. 44:9–20), parable (2 Sam. 12:1–14), and lament (Jer. 9:20; Ezek. 19; Amos 5:1), to produce the desired rhetorical effect. The prophetic introductory or concluding oracular formulas “thus says the Lord” and “declares the Lord” echo the messenger terminology of the broader culture, in which a similar introductory “thus says X” was used by messengers delivering public proclamations on behalf of the one who commissioned them (2 Chron. 36:23). In this way, the prophet presented an oracle as God’s message to the people, not his own.

Nominal Israel was condemned for seeking pronouncements from false gods (2 Kings 1:3–4, 6, 16; 2 Chron. 25:15; Hos. 4:12), necromancy (Isa. 8:19), and failure to inquire of the true God of Israel (Zeph. 1:6). False prophets could also claim to have received communication from God (Deut. 13:1–11; 18:20; Ezek. 13), but they were indicted for delivering their own message without divine sanction (Jer. 23:34–39; 28; Lam. 2:14; Ezek. 13), turning the people away from the true God to worship false gods (Deut. 13:1–11) and delivering oracular pronouncements in order to enjoy personal pleasure (Mic. 2:11) and gain (Jer. 6:13–15; 8:10–12).

Often Scripture simply notes that a prophet received a “word of the Lord” (Jer. 1:2; Hos. 1:1; Joel 1:1; cf. Isa. 14:28; Hab. 1:1) without explicitly stating the means by which the divine pronouncement was received. The prophetic witness mentions both seeing (Isa. 1:1; 13:1; Amos 8:1; Hab. 1:1) and hearing (Ezek. 1:24–25, 28) divine communication, but what actually happened to the prophet is not easily determined. The references to the Spirit coming upon an individual (Num. 11:25; 24:2; 1 Sam. 10:6, 10; Ezek. 8:1; 11:5; 37:1) point to some sort of divine intervention that seized the prophet’s consciousness in such a way as to prepare the prophet for a revelation from God.

Prophets were known to have ecstatic or visionary experiences that marked them as operating under divine influence. In addition, several of the prophets (Isa. 20; Jer. 13:1–11; Ezek. 5:1–4) acted out demonstrations (sign-acts) as part of their oracular ministry. These ecstatic experiences and peculiar actions offended many of their contemporaries (2 Kings 9:11; Jer. 29:26; Hos. 9:7). These phenomena were concentrated around the two great crises faced by Israel: the demise of the northern kingdom in 722 BC and of the southern kingdom in 586 BC. Having been given warning that national judgment was imminent, these prophets were led to augment their preaching with dramatizations in order to convey more persuasively to the audience the urgency of heeding their message (Ezek. 12:8–11).

Types of Oracles

Form critics have identified three main types of prophetic oracles: oracles of salvation, judgment, and repentance. The first is further divided into subcategories: individual salvation oracles (1 Kings 17:8–16) and community salvation oracles (1 Sam. 7:3–15). The prophets, however, were not tightly bound to the traditional forms, and they demonstrated great creativity in modifying the forms to fit their personal style and the situation before them.

These various types of oracles were not arbitrary pronouncements; they were founded on Israel’s covenantal relationship with Yahweh (Jer. 34:18). The prophets served as covenant prosecutors, and their oracles were part of the prosecution’s case on behalf of Yahweh against the people. Behavior, whether an individual’s or the nation’s, was evaluated in light of the demands of the covenant. So too, Yahweh’s response—judgment or salvation—was cast in terms of his faithfulness to the covenant(s) that he made with Israel.

Salvation oracles announced Yahweh’s glorious deliverance and restoration, mostly in response to the catastrophe of 586 BC (Ezek. 11:16–21; 36:24–38; 37:15–28; Amos 9:11–15; Zeph. 3:14–20), and they could include in the salvific pronouncement the destruction of the enemy (Zeph. 3:19). They often open with the formulaic “in that day” (Amos 9:11; Mic. 4:6), focusing Israel’s attention on a future time when all its enemies would be subdued and covenantal blessings would be established and enjoyed by the redeemed community.

Judgment oracles typically were introduced with an interjection, often translated into English as “woe,” followed by a formal address and accusation accompanied by an announcement of the punishment to be inflicted (Isa. 1:4; 5:8, 11, 18, 20, 21, 22; Jer. 22:13; Ezek. 34:2). These oracles could take the form of a lawsuit. In Isa. 1:2 “heaven and earth” are summoned as witnesses, harking back to Deut. 30:19; 31:28; 32:1, where these elements of nature were invoked by Moses to be witnesses of God’s covenant with Israel. Some oracles state explicitly that a case has been brought against the people (Isa. 3:13; Jer. 2:9; Hos. 4:1; 12:2; Mic. 6:1–2).

Repentance oracles specifically summon the addressee to repentance and a recommitment to the covenant in order to avoid destruction (Isa. 31:6; Jer. 4:1; Hos. 12:6).

Means of Oracles

Various objects were sanctioned for use in discerning God’s will. Scripture is silent on many of the details regarding the manipulation of these objects, but the validity of their use for discerning the divine will is not questioned. The mysterious Urim and Thummim, two stonelike objects kept in the high priest’s breastpiece, appear to have operated to give a “yes or no” response (Exod. 28:30; Lev. 8:8; Deut. 33:8; 1 Sam. 14:41), though sometimes there is no response at all (1 Sam. 28:6). The ephod, some sort of two-piece linen apron or loin cloth worn by priests under the breastpiece (Exod. 28:4, 6; 1 Sam. 23:9–12; 1 Sam. 30:7–8; but note that Samuel was wearing one as he assisted the high priest Eli [1 Sam. 2:18], and David, as he led the procession returning the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem [2 Sam. 6:14]), was also pressed into service for discerning God’s will. Another method, the casting of lots, is shrouded in mystery. This method was used to determine the scapegoat on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:8–10), the guilty party in the loss at Ai (Josh. 7:14), land allotment in Canaan (Josh. 14–19; 21), priestly assignments in the temple (1 Chron. 24:5; 25:8; 26:13), residency in Jerusalem in the postexilic community (Neh. 11:1), the day to massacre the Jews in Persia as plotted by Haman (Esther 3:7; 9:24), and dividing the Messiah’s clothing (Ps. 22:18; cf. John 19:24).

Oracles against the Foreign Nations

A special group of oracles are those addressed to Israel’s historic enemies, commonly referred to as “oracles against the [foreign] nations.” Blocks of these oracles are found in Amos 1–2; Isa. 13–23; Jer. 46–51; Ezek. 25–32 and the entire books of Nahum and Obadiah. These oracles were addressed to a specific foreign nation (the putative audience) but were heard by Israel. During a time when most people’s conception of deity was tied to a specific land, these oracles maintained that Yahweh was sovereign over the whole earth, and that his purposes included all humankind. All the nations do his bidding. These oracles were to be understood against the backdrop of Israel’s infidelity to Yahweh and its futile reliance on the support of foreign nations. The oracles demonstrated that Yahweh would bring down all that was haughty and would order events so that he alone would be high and exalted in the day of his coming. Those nations that cursed Israel would themselves be cursed (Gen. 12:1–3; 27:29).

New Testament Usage

In the NT, “oracle” (Gk. logion) occurs four times, always in the plural (logia [NIV: “words”]). It refers to the Mosaic law (Acts 7:38) and unspecified portions of revelation (Rom. 3:2; Heb. 5:12; 1 Pet. 4:11).

Patience is a moral attribute that God possesses and that humans may possess. One who has patience allows time to pass while maintaining a positive disposition, often in the face of suffering (Hab. 3:16; 2 Tim. 3:10–11; James 5:10), as the KJV translation “longsuffering” implies (cf. Prov. 14:29 NASB: “slow to anger”). The Scriptures universally speak of patience as an admirable quality and associate patience with other virtues, such as inner peace (Ps. 37:7), wisdom (Prov. 19:11), persuasiveness (Prov. 25:15), humility (Eccles. 7:8), and kindness (Rom. 2:4; 1 Cor. 13:4).

Numerous passages praise God’s patience. Humans try (Isa. 7:13) and show contempt for (Rom. 2:4) God’s patience, sometimes by refusing to be patient with others even though they themselves have received mercy from God (Matt. 18:23–35). Nonetheless, God displays his patience by granting them eternal life through faith in Christ (1 Tim. 1:16). In fact, God has patiently delayed destroying the world because he is compassionate and wants all to come to repentance (2 Pet. 3:9). God’s patience is evident even toward those who are destined for destruction (Rom. 9:22; 1 Pet. 3:20).

Just as God is patient, he imparts patience to the Christian through his Holy Spirit (Gal. 5:22). Like Abraham, the prophets, and any farmer, Christians are to exhibit patience, bearing with people both inside and outside the church (Eph. 4:2; 1 Thess. 5:14–15) as they wait eagerly for Christ’s return (Heb. 6:12–15; James 5:7–10). Those in Christian leadership must model patience and encourage others with patience (2 Tim. 3:10; 4:2).

Jesus Christ is the centerpiece of the Christian Scriptures. The meaning and interpretation of both Testaments is properly grasped only in light of the person and work of Jesus Christ. That is not to say that the Testaments testify to Jesus Christ in the exact same way; they obviously do not, but both Testaments are part of the inscripturated revelation that, in light of the incarnation, proclaims Jesus Christ to be the fullest manifestation of God given to humankind.

Old Testament

According to the Scriptures. The early Christians were adamant that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ happened “according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3–4), which meant that these events lined up with Israel’s sacred traditions. On the road to Emmaus the risen Jesus explained to the two travelers the things concerning himself “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” in relation to the death and glorification of the Messiah (Luke 24:27). In one of the major Johannine discourses, Jesus tells the Pharisees that the Scriptures “testify about me” (John 5:39). Early Christian authors could find certain key texts that demonstrated the conformity of the Christ-event to the pattern of Israel’s Scriptures, such as Pss. 2; 110; 118; Isa. 53. Yet much of the OT can be understood without mention of Jesus Christ in relation to its own historical context, and there is the danger of overly allegorizing OT texts in order to make them say something about Jesus Christ and the church.

The relationship between the Testaments. The way that the NT authors echo, allude to, quote, and interpret the OT is a complex matter, but at least two points need to be made about the relationship between the two Testaments.

First, the OT anticipates and illuminates the coming of Jesus Christ. “Anticipate” does not mean “predict,” but the law and the prophets foreshadow the offices and identity of Jesus Christ. The offices of prophet, priest, and king in the OT prefigure the ministry of Christ, who is the one who reveals God, intercedes on behalf of humankind, and is the Messiah and Lord. The sacrificial cultus, with the necessity of shedding blood for the removal of sin, prefigures the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. This is why the law is a “shadow” of the one who was to come (Col. 2:17; Heb. 10:1). “Illuminate” means that certain OT texts, though not referring to Jesus in their historical or literary context, explain aspects of his person and work. This is seen most clearly in the way that the psalms are used in the NT. Texts such as Pss. 2:7; 110:1–4 provided biblical categories that explained the nature of Jesus’ sonship, the quality of his priestly ministry, and his installation as God’s vice-regent.

Second, we should differentiate between prophecy and typology. The prophetic promises in Ezek. 37; Amos 9; and Mic. 4 about a future Davidic king whom God will use to save and restore Israel are genuine prophecies that look forward to a future event yet to be fulfilled. These texts set forth the job description of the Messiah as the renewal and restoration of Israel from bondage and exile. It is unsurprising then that in Acts, James the brother of Jesus could cite Amos 9:11–12 as proof that Gentiles should be accepted into the people of God with the coming of the Messiah (Acts 15:15–18).

Typological interpretation, on the other hand, sees OT persons, places, or events as prototypes or patterns of NT persons, places, or events. For example, in Rom. 5:14 Paul says that Adam is a “type” or “pattern” of the one to come. Similarly, Matthew’s use of Isa. 7:14 in Matt. 1:23 is also typological rather than prophetic. In the context of Isaiah, the promise refers to a child born during the reign of King Ahaz as a sign that the Judean kingdom will survive the Assyrian onslaught. Matthew’s citation does not demand an exact correspondence of events as much as it postulates a correlation of patterns or types between Isaiah’s narrative and the Matthean birth story. The coming of God’s Son, the manifestation of God’s presence, and the rescue of Israel through a child born to a young girl bring to Matthew’s mind Isa. 7 as an obvious prophetic precedent, repeated at a new juncture of redemptive history.

A Christology of the Old Testament. The NT authors interpreted the OT in search of answers to questions pertaining to the identity and ministry of Jesus Christ, the nature of the people of God, and the arrival of the new age. They detected patterns in the OT that were repeated or recapitulated in Jesus’ own person. They proclaimed that the prophetic promises made to Israel had been made good in Jesus Christ, and they found allusions to the various events of his life, death, and exaltation. Jesus and Israel’s Scriptures became a mutually interpretive spiral whereby the Christians began to understand the OT in light of Jesus and understood Jesus in light of the OT. In this canonical setting we can legitimately develop a “Christology of the Old Testament.”

New Testament

The Gospels. The canonical Gospels are four ancient biographies that pay attention to the history and significance of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. They represent a testimony to Jesus and embody the collective memory of his person and actions as they were transmitted and interpreted by Christians in the Greco-Roman world of the mid- to late first century.

All four Gospels follow the same basic outline by variably detailing Jesus’ ministry, passion, and exaltation, and all of them place the story of Jesus in the context of the fulfillment of the story of Israel. At the same time, each Gospel in its plot and portrayal of Jesus remains distinctive in its own right. Yet they are not four different Jesuses, but rather four parallel portraits of Jesus, much like four stained-glass windows or four paintings depict the same person in different ways.

The Gospel of Matthew portrays Jesus as the long-awaited Davidic Messiah of Israel, with a focus on his teaching authority as a type of new Moses. The Gospel of Mark describes Jesus as the powerful Son of God and concurrently as the suffering Son of Man, whose cross reveals the reality of his identity and mission. The Gospel of Luke emphasizes Jesus’ role as an anointed prophet with a special concern for the poor and outcasts and his role as dispenser of the Holy Spirit. Without flattening the distinctive christological shape of each of the Synoptic Gospels, we could say that they focus on Jesus as the proclaimer of the kingdom of God and as king of the very same kingdom.

The Gospel of John has its own set of characteristic emphases in which Jesus’ consciousness of his divine nature and purpose is heightened. Programmatic for the entirety of John’s Gospel is the prologue in 1:1–18 about the “Word [who] became flesh,” which gives a clear theology of incarnation and revelation associated with Jesus’ coming. There is also much material unique to John’s Gospel, such as the “I am” statements that further exposit the nature of Jesus’ person and the climactic confession by Thomas that Jesus is “my Lord and my God” (20:28).

The Gospels indicate that mere knowledge that Jesus died for the purpose of salvation is an insufficient understanding of him. What is also needed, and what they provide, is an understanding of his teachings and his mission in light of Israel’s Scriptures and in view of the sociopolitical situation of Palestine. Jesus came to redeem and renew Israel so that a transformed Israel would transform the world.

Acts. The book of Acts contains the story of the emergence of the early church from Jerusalem to Rome. Even though Acts is a repository of apostolic preaching and plots the beginnings of the Gentile mission, it is the sequel to Luke’s Gospel and is very much the story of Jesus in perfect tense (i.e., a past event with ongoing significance). The most succinct summary of the Christology of Acts is in Peter’s speech in Jerusalem, where he states that “this Jesus” whom they crucified has been made both “Lord and Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” by God (2:36). In the succeeding narratives emphasis is given to “Jesus is the Christ [NIV: “Messiah”]” (e.g., 9:22; 17:3; 18:5), which is a message pertinent to Jews and Gentiles (20:21).

Paul’s Letters. The Pauline Epistles, although they are situational, pastoral, and not given primarily to christological exposition, still exhibit beliefs about Jesus held by Paul and his Christian contemporaries. The high points of Paul’s Christology can be detected in his use of traditional material such as Col. 1:15–20, which exposits the sufficiency and the supremacy of Christ. Philippians 2:5–11 narrates the story of the incarnation as an example of self-giving love. In 1 Cor. 8:6 Paul offers a Christianized version of the Shema of Deut. 6:4. There is a petition to Jesus as “Come, Lord!” in 1 Cor. 16:22. Paul can also refer to Jesus as God in Rom. 9:5 (although the grammar is ambiguous). For Paul, Jesus is both the “heavenly man” (1 Cor. 15:47–49) and the Son to come from heaven (1 Thess. 1:10). This interest in the divine Son of God does not mean that Paul was ignorant of or disinterested in the life and teachings of Jesus. Elsewhere he implies knowledge of Jesus’ teachings (e.g., Rom. 14:14; 1 Cor. 7:10–11) and refers to the incarnation (e.g., 2 Cor. 8:9; Col. 2:9).

A number of titles are used to describe Jesus in Paul’s letters, including “Lord” and “Christ/Messiah” (and variations such as “Lord Jesus Christ” and “Christ Jesus”), “Savior,” and “Seed of David” (Rom. 1:3). But probably the most apt expression of Jesus’ nature according to Paul is “Son of God” (e.g., Rom. 1:4; 2 Cor. 1:19; Gal. 2:20). This language of sonship suggests that Jesus is the means of God’s salvation and glory and is the special agent through whom the Father acts. Referring to Jesus as “Son” also underscores Jesus’ unique relationship to God the Father and his unique role in executing the ordained plan of salvation for the elect.

We might also add that Paul provides the building blocks of what would later become a full-blown trinitarian theology, such as in the benediction of 2 Cor. 13:14 and in general exhortations about the gospel (1 Cor. 2:1–5). It must be emphasized that Paul’s Christology cannot be separated from his eschatology, soteriology, and ecclesiology. The sending of God’s Son (see Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:4–5) into the world marks the coming of redemption and salvation through the cross and resurrection of the Son, and these are appropriated by faith. Those who believe become members of the restored Israel, the renewed Adamic race, and constituent members of the body of Christ. To that we might add the experiential element of Paul’s Christology as Jesus is known in the experience of salvation, prayer, and worship (e.g., Gal. 2:19–20).

The General Letters. The General Letters (also called the Catholic Epistles) provide a further array of images and explorations into the person and work of Jesus Christ and how they relate to the community of faith. The message of Hebrews is essentially “Jesus is better!” He is better than the angels and better than Moses; he is a better high priest; he offers a better sacrifice, establishes a better law, and instigates a better covenant. This letter is a sermonic exhortation against falling away from the faith (e.g., 2:1–4), and toward that end the author sets before his readers the magnificence of Jesus Christ, who is “the same yesterday and today and forever” (13:8).

James has little christological content and focuses instead on exhortations that bear remarkable resemblance to the teachings of Jesus from the Gospels. Even so, the letter makes passing reference to the “glorious Lord Jesus Christ” (2:1; cf. 1:1).

Central to 1 Peter is the glory and salvation that will be manifested at the revelation of Jesus Christ at his second coming (1:5, 7, 9, 13; 4:13; 5:1). Much attention is given to Jesus’ sacrificial death as a lamb (1:19), the example of his suffering (2:21–23; 4:1–2, 13), and the substitutionary nature of his death (2:24; 3:18). He is the Shepherd and Overseer of the souls of Christians (2:25). Peter writes this to encourage congregations in Asia Minor living under adverse conditions, and he sets before them the pattern of Jesus as a model for their own journey.

In 2 Peter we find a mix of Jewish eschatological concepts and Hellenistic religious language, with the author seeking to defend the apostolic gospel in a pagan culture. Jesus is the source of knowledge (1:2, 8; 2:20) and righteousness (1:1). Much emphasis is given to the coming kingdom of Jesus Christ (1:11, 16; 3:10). Jesus is the sustainer and renewer of the church and also the coming judge of the entire world.

Similar themes can be found in Jude, which is addressed to a group of believers who have been infiltrated by false teachers promoting licentiousness. Jude declares the infiltrators to be condemned and calls on the believers to hold fast to the faith. Jesus is the “Sovereign and Lord” (v. 4), Jesus saved people out of Egypt during the exodus (v. 5 [but see marginal notes on the variant reading “Lord”]), the second coming of Jesus will mark the revelation of his “mercy” (v. 21), and the benediction ascribes “glory, majesty, power and authority” to God through Jesus (v. 25). Most characteristic of all is the emphasis upon Jesus/God as the one who keeps the believers in the grip of his saving power (vv. 1, 21, 23).

The Letters of John take up where the Gospel of John left off, focusing on Jesus as the incarnate Word of God. The first of the three Johannine Epistles appears to have been written in a context where a community of Christians was being pressured by Jews to deny that Jesus is the Messiah (2:22) and also by dissident docetists to deny that Jesus had a physical body (4:2; 5:6). The major focus, however, is on Jesus as the Son of God (1:3, 7; 2:23; 3:8, 23; 4:9–10, 15; 5:11) and the incarnation of God’s very own truth and love (3:16; cf. 2 John 3).

Revelation. The Christology of the book of Revelation is best summed up in the opening description of Jesus as “him who is, and who was, and who is to come,” which underscores the lordship of Jesus over the past, present, and future. John then describes Jesus with the threefold titles “the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth” (1:4–5). In many ways, the story and Christology of Revelation are paradoxical. Jesus is both the victim of Roman violence and the victor over human evil. Jesus is the suffering “Lamb of God” and the powerful “Lion of the tribe of Judah.” In Rev. 4–5 we are given a picture of the worship in heaven and the enthronement of Jesus, and yet the realities on earth are a dearth of heavenly goodness, with persecution and apostasy rampant (Rev. 1–3). This tension continues until the final revelation of Jesus, when the heavenly Lord returns to bring the goodness and power of heaven to transform the perils of the earth and bring his people into the new Jerusalem.

Summary

The primary fixtures of a biblical Christology are (1) Jesus Christ is the promised deliverer intimated in Israel’s Scriptures, whose identity and mission are anticipated and illuminated by the law and the prophets; (2) the man Jesus of Nazareth is identified with the risen and exalted Lord Jesus Christ; and (3) Jesus participates in the very identity and being of God. See also Jesus Christ.

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

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

This term occurs in the KJV of Rom. 9:29; James 5:4 (NIV: “Almighty”). In both cases the word in the Greek text (sabaōth) is a transliteration of the Hebrew term tseba’ot. This word occurs approximately five hundred times in the OT and is variously rendered. Among English translations, the NIV is practically alone in translating it as “Almighty,” but in doing so it follows the practice of the LXX. Most translations render it as “hosts” or “armies.” The underlying thought is that Israel’s God is “Yahweh of hosts” or “Yahweh of armies” (a phrase occurring approximately 280 times), the God who commands all the armies of both heaven and earth.

The term is grounded in the Israelite understanding of God as a warrior (Exod. 15:3) who fights alongside and for Israel against its enemies (holy war). In doing so he commands the armies of the heavens (the angels) as well as Israelite soldiers. It is also important to note that when Israel forsakes its God to serve other deities, “Yahweh of armies” will become the unseen commander of the armies of Israel’s enemies (e.g., the Assyrians or Babylonians) to fight against Israel (see, e.g., Isa. 7:18–20).

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

Materials

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

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

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

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

Types of Tools

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

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

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

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

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

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

The biblical writers proclaim that only one God exists, yet they also refer to three persons as “God.” The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all God. Furthermore, these three persons relate to one another as self-conscious individuals. Jesus prays to the Father (John 17). The Father speaks from heaven concerning the Son (Matt. 3:17; Luke 3:22). Jesus vows to send the Spirit as “Advocate” after his ascension, and he will do what Jesus himself did while he was among us (John 16:7–8). The challenge of Christian theology, therefore, is to formulate a doctrine of God that captures all these elements, each of which surfaces in both Testaments.

Old Testament

In the OT, evidence for the Trinity appears mostly at the implicit level. Yahweh is called “Father” in Isaiah (63:16; 64:8), Jeremiah (3:4, 19; 31:9), and Malachi (2:10). Isaiah declares, “But you are our Father, though Abraham does not know us or Israel acknowledge us; you, Lord, are our Father, our Redeemer from of old is your name” (Isa. 63:16). Yahweh identifies himself as “Father” implicitly when he claims Israel as his “son” (Hos. 11:1), and the same principle applies to Ps. 2:7, where God declares to his anointed, “You are my son; today I have become your father.” These cases do not compare in numbers with the NT evidence, but a person thought of as “God the Father” certainly appears in the OT.

Messianic texts of the OT introduce us to God the Son. In Isa. 9:6 a “child is born” who will be called “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” The day of “Immanuel,” or “God with us,” is foreshadowed in Isa. 7:14 (cf. Matt. 1:22), while Isa. 40:3–5 anticipates the appearance of the Lord “in the wilderness” (cf. Matt. 3:3). Daniel sees “one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven” being given “authority, glory and sovereign power” (Dan. 7:13–14). In Ps. 110:1 Yahweh says to David’s “Lord,” “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”

Similarly, the OT seems to distinguish the Spirit of God from Yahweh while implying the Spirit’s own personality. Genesis 1:2 makes that case, as does Exod. 31:3, where Yahweh fills Bezalel with the “Spirit of God” (cf. Exod. 35:31; Num. 11:29). In 1 Sam. 16:14 a contrast is made between the “Spirit of the Lord” that leaves Saul and an “evil spirit from the Lord” that torments him; also we find a repentant David pleading that God would not take away his “Holy Spirit” (Ps. 51:11). The Spirit can be put on persons by God, with the result that they prophesy (Isa. 61:1; Joel 2:28–29) and do what pleases him (Ezek. 36:26–27). In the OT, therefore, we see two persons (the Son and the Holy Spirit) who are both God and also distinguishable from one to whom they answer and by whom they are sent.

New Testament

The NT contains abundant evidence for “God the Father,” often because of Jesus’ teaching. The “Father” appears several times in the Sermon on the Mount (e.g., Matt. 5:16; 6:6–9, 14, 18, 26, 32; 7:11). Matthew 7:21 stands out because of Jesus’ reference to “my Father who is in heaven,” by which he identifies himself as the Son (see also Matt. 15:13; 16:17; 18:10; and Luke 24:49). Paul’s greetings normally come from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, as seen in Rom. 1:7: “Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ” (also 1 Cor. 1:3; 2 Cor. 1:2; Gal. 1:1–3; 1 Tim. 1:2; 2 Tim. 1:2). Paul introduces the Father and the Son in 1 Cor. 8:6: “For us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live” (see also 1 Cor. 15:24; 2 Cor. 11:31; Eph. 1:3; Phil. 2:22). Other significant texts include Heb. 1:5; 1 Pet. 1:2–3; in the latter, the scattered believers are those “who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood. . . . Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!” The NT evidence for “God the Father” is clear.

Biblical texts that point to the deity of Christ supply evidence for the second claim: the Son is God. Some of the texts listed above say as much, but one can take this case further. In context, John’s prologue refers to Jesus as the “Word” and proclaims that he was “with God” and “was God” (John 1:1). Jesus also relates to the Father in ways that imply his own deity, as he declares in John 10:30, “I and the Father are one.” After significant doubting, Thomas confesses the deity of Christ in John 20:28: “My Lord and my God!” NT passages that identify Jesus as the “Son of God” point to his deity, as Peter does in Matt. 16:16: “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Even demons identify Jesus as the Son. They call out, “What do you want with us, Son of God? . . . Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?” (Matt. 8:29; cf. Mark 5:7). The so-called Christ Hymn of Phil. 2:6–11 puts Jesus on the level with God, saying that he did not consider “equality with God something to be used to his own advantage.” The author of Hebrews declares that Jesus is “the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being” (1:3). Colossians 1:15–16 says that Jesus is the “image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation” and the one by whom “all things were created,” and Col. 1:19 states that “God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him.” According to Titus 2:13, Jesus is “our great God and Savior.” The entire sequence of Rev. 4–5 highlights the deity of Christ, culminating in the praise “To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!” as both the Enthroned One and the Lamb are worshiped as God (5:13–14).

The NT writers underscore both the deity and the distinctive personality of the Holy Spirit. Jesus is conceived in Mary’s womb by the Spirit’s power (Matt. 1:18–20), and when Jesus is baptized, the Spirit descends upon him as a dove (Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:10). Jesus drives out demons by the Spirit, and one dare not speak against the Spirit when he does so (Matt. 12:28–32). Luke’s Gospel puts added emphasis on the ministry of the Spirit, as we also see in Acts. He empowers various people to praise and prophesy (Luke 1:41, 67) and to be witnesses for Christ (Acts 1:8; 2:4, 17–18, 38). Sinners can lie to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3, 9), and the Holy Spirit bears witness along with the apostles to the risen Christ (5:32). In John’s Gospel, the Spirit becomes the counselor and teacher of the disciples, reminding them of their Lord’s instructions (John 14:26; 16:13). The Spirit brings assurance of sonship (Rom. 8:16) and helps disciples when they pray (8:26). This person even knows the very thoughts of God (1 Cor. 2:11). Accordingly, the Great Commission requires baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19). All three members of the Trinity have a part in the advancement of the kingdom, the Spirit no less than the Father and the Son.

Relationships between Father, Son, and Spirit

The evidence considered thus far demonstrates that three persons are called “God” in Scripture: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But the Scriptures also point to a chain of command in their relationship to one another. The Son obeys the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son to apply the work of the cross to the church. This “functional subordination” of the Son to the Father, some might argue, would follow simply from the analogy chosen by God to reveal himself to us. The “Son” would obey his “Father,” not vice versa, though they share a common dignity as God, just as a human father and son share a common humanity. But the NT writers expressly tell us that they relate to each other in this way. In Matt. 11:27 (cf. Luke 10:22) Jesus announces, “All things have been committed to me by my Father” (cf. John 3:35; 5:22). The latter transfers authority to the former as his subordinate. The Father even (for a season) knows more than the Son regarding the last days: “About that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” (Matt. 24:36), though he also dignifies the Son: “For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does” (John 5:20). The Son’s commitment to please his heavenly Father is a prominent theme of the NT, as Jesus declares in John 5:19: “The Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.” No text brings out this dependence of the Son upon the Father more clearly than Heb. 5:7–8, where the Son is said to have “offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered.” It is debated by theologians whether this functional subordination relates only to the period of the Son’s earthly ministry, or whether it is an eternal subordination.

The Spirit, though equal in personality and dignity with the Father and the Son, proceeds from them to apply the work of the cross and empower the church for ministry. In John 14:26 Jesus says, “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.” In John 15:26 Jesus announces that he also sends the Spirit out: “When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me.” The Spirit only conveys what he has received: “He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come” (John 16:13). The same “chain of command” appears in John 16:15, where Jesus says, “All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.”

Trinitarian Heresies

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are God, while being distinguishable persons. The Son obeys the Father; and these two persons of the Trinity send out the Holy Spirit to implement our deliverance from sin. A defensible explanation of the Trinity will respect all these dynamics, taking special care not to illustrate them with misleading images or simply lapse into various forms of polytheism. One of the earliest heresies of the church came from Marcion, a second-century theologian who distinguished the Father of Jesus from the supposedly vindictive God of the OT, which leaves us with more than one God. Later came the heresies of modalism and subordinationism (or Arianism). Modalists claimed that the persons of the Trinity are no more than guises worn by the one person of God. One minute God is the Father, the next he is the Son or the Holy Spirit. Subordinationists such as Arius (died AD 336) went beyond the functionality of the NT’s chain of command, arguing that the Son and the Holy Spirit are not themselves God but are essentially subordinate to him. Jehovah’s Witnesses have fallen into this latter error, suggesting that Jesus is “a god” but not the Creator God.

These early heresies pressed the church to refine its understanding of the Trinity. In his response to Marcion’s error, Tertullian coined precise language to describe the persons of the Godhead, so that God’s “threeness” and “oneness” are preserved. He used the Latin term trinitas to describe the Christian God and argued that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit share the same “substance.” The Son (also, then, the Holy Spirit) is not simply of “like substance” (Gk. homoiousios) with God the Father, but rather is “consubstantial” (Gk. homoousios) with him: the Son is God, and so is the Holy Spirit. The Nicene Creed of AD 325 incorporated this explanation and, in so doing, also set aside the idea that either the Son or the Holy Spirit was created by God, as the Arian heresy requires. Nicaea also rejected adoptionism, which regards Jesus as a man whom God promoted by endowing him with supernatural powers.

Each of these heresies—plus, say, the strict monotheism of Islam—attempts to relieve the tension seen among the claims that constitute the Trinity; however, orthodox Christians will remember that tensions and paradoxes are not automatic contradictions. No philosopher or theologian has ever expressly demonstrated that the Trinity entails logical nonsense, and Christianity’s detractors carry the burden of proof in this case. It is one thing to allege that an idea is contradictory, and quite another thing to show with an argument that it is so. On the positive side, the Trinity must remain a central doctrine of the church because it affects all the others, especially the entire work of redemption. If God is not triune, then Jesus is not God; and if he is not God, then he cannot save us, nor can we worship him as our Lord. The sacrifice that he offers for our sin would not, in that case, be supremely valuable. Consider also the application to us of what Christ has done. If the Holy Spirit is not God, then he cannot speak for God as one who knows perfectly his thoughts and gives us the word of God, our Bible. Scripture indicates that God is triune, and sinners need him to be so.