Someone who lives in or originates from Galilee. Jesus grew up in the extremely southern part of Galilee, at Nazareth, and his first followers were drawn from throughout the region. Galilee had a population of about three hundred thousand people in two hundred or more villages, as well as several large cities (Josephus, Life 235). Galileans shared a unique dialect (Matt. 26:73; cf. Acts 2:7). The region had a reputation for fomenting rebellion (Luke 13:1; 23:5–6). The Pharisee Gamaliel mentions Judas the Galilean (Acts 5:37), who sparked a revolt against the census under Quirinius around AD 6 (Josephus, J.W. 2.118, 433; Ant. 18.23). Galilee was also associated with non-Jews (Gentiles) primarily because of the Decapolis, a league of approximately ten cities (Matt. 4:12–17, citing Isa. 9:1–2; Mark 7:31). However, archaeological evidence and the NT suggest that Galilean Jews, many of whom colonized the area during the rule of the Maccabees, retained close cultural and religious ties with Judea and the temple (Luke 1:26–27; 2:1–7, 39–40; John 4:45).

The word “parable” is used to speak of a particular literary form that communicates indirectly by means of comparative language, often for the purpose of challenging the listener to accept or reject a new way of thinking about a particular matter. Parables regularly incorporate concrete and accessible images from the daily life of the audience, and often they are terse and pointed, mentioning only the details relevant for an effective comparison. However, any attempt to define the term “parable” in a clear and concise way is complicated by the fact that both the Hebrew (mashal) and the Greek (parabolē) words regularly translated by the English word “parable” have much broader connotations. For instance, in the OT mashal can designate proverbs (Prov. 1:1), riddles (Ezek. 17:2), prophetic utterances (Num. 23:7, 18; 24:3, 15, 20, 21, 23), and sayings (1 Sam. 10:12); similarly, in the NT parabolē denotes proverbs (Luke 4:23), riddles (Mark 3:23), analogies (Mark 7:17), and more. Therefore, no comprehensive definition of parables is agreed upon by biblical scholars, and very little said about parables in general will apply to every parable.

Parables in the Bible

Although not designated with the Hebrew word mashal, the story of the trees (Judg. 9:7–15) and the story of the ewe lamb (2 Sam. 12:1–4) may be considered to be parables. Like many parables, the story about the ewe lamb told by Nathan prompts its audience, in this case David, to condemn the actions of a character in the parable before being confronted with the fact that the character and his conduct are symbolic of David himself. The parable is the vehicle used to bring about self-condemnation of its audience.

Although Jesus is not the only speaker of parables in the ancient world, the Gospels narrate a tremendous number of parables within his teaching. The major parables of Jesus are listed in table 4. The diversity of form represented in this list is striking. Some of the parables consist of short, relatively simple comparisons that lack the development of any significant story line. This is true, for instance, of the parables of the mustard seed, yeast, hidden treasure, and the pearl. Each of these offers a simple simile to explain some feature of the kingdom of God, a frequent topic in Jesus’ parables, and may include an additional sentence of clarification.

Table 4. Major Parables of Jesus

Wise and foolish builders (Matt. 7:24-27; Luke 6:46-49)

Sower and the soils (Matt. 13:3–8, 18–23; Mark 4:3–8, 14–20; Luke 8:5–8, 11–15)

Weeds (Matt. 13:24-30, 36-43)

Mustard seed (Matt. 13:31–32; Mark 4:30–32; Luke 13:18–19)

Yeast (Matt. 13:33; Luke 13:20-21)

Hidden treasure (Matt. 13:44)

Pearl (Matt. 13:45-46)

Net (Matt. 13:47-50)

Lost sheep (Matt. 18:12-14; Luke 15:4-7)

Unmerciful servant (Matt. 18:23-35)

Workers in the vineyard (Matt. 20:1-16)

Two sons (Matt. 21:28-32)

Wicked tenants (Matt. 21:33–44; Mark 12:1–11; Luke 20:9–18)

Wedding banquet (Matt. 22:2-14)

Faithful and wise servant (Matt. 24:45-51; Luke 12:42-48)

Ten virgins (Matt. 25:1-13)

Talents (Matt. 25:14–30; Luke 19:12–27)

Sheep and goats (Matt. 25:31-46)

Growing seeds (Mark 4:26-29)

Money lender (Luke 7:41-47)

Good Samritan (Luke 10:30-37)

Friend in need (Luke 11:5-8)

Rich fool (Luke 12:16-21)

Unfruitful fig tree (Luke 13:6-9)

Lowest seat (Luke 14:7-14)

Great banquet (Luke 14:16-24)

Cost of discipleship (Luke 14:28-33)

Lost coin (Luke 15:8-10)

Lost (prodigal) son (Luke 15:11-32)

Shrewd manager (Luke 16:1-8)

Rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31)

Persistent widow (Luke 18:2-8)

Pharisee and tax collector (Luke 18:10-14)

Parables such as the good Samaritan and the prodigal son, on the other hand, are significantly longer, contain developed plots, and present several central characters. Stories of this sort may use the characters as examples of behavior to be either emulated or avoided, as in the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector. Such parables may remain open-ended in an attempt to force the listeners into a decision about what should happen (the unfruitful fig tree), or they may include a clear, concluding explanation that leaves no doubt as to how the audience should change their belief or behavior as a result of the parable’s teaching (the moneylender). The degree to which each of these parables directly addresses the intended audience and the intended topic can vary greatly. For instance, although the parable of the rich fool directly addresses the subject matter of material wealth, the anonymity of the rich man in the story does not openly condemn any particular member of Jesus’ audience. Alternatively, a parable may treat a subject that differs from the intended one and expect the listener to transfer the lesson to another topic. This is the case with the parable of the weeds, which speaks explicitly about farming. Nonetheless, when the disciples seek an explanation of this parable, Jesus indicates that it is to be understood as speaking about that feature of the kingdom of heaven whereby the sons of the kingdom and the sons of the evil one intermingle in the world until the end of the age, when the sons of the evil one will be separated to face a fiery judgment (Matt. 13:36–43).

Other parables, such as that of the lost sheep, revolve around a central question posed to the listeners. By asking “who among you” would behave in the way described, the parable anticipates a negative response that asserts that no one would act in the manner detailed in the parable. The NIV frequently inserts the phrase “suppose one of you” in places where the introductory question “who among you” appears in Greek.

Purpose of Jesus’ Teaching in Parables

It is quite clear that Jesus regularly employed parables in his teaching, but his reason for doing so is less evident. Jesus’ own somewhat perplexing statement in Mark 4:10–12 indicates that his parables have the dual purpose of both revealing and concealing the secret of the kingdom, but one may wonder how it is that parables perform both functions simultaneously. If the goal of comparative language is to make clearer a concept or idea that is difficult, then certainly Jesus’ parables function in this way. Through the simple, accessible, and concrete word pictures that are his parables, Jesus discloses many characteristics and features of the kingdom of God, which is at best something of an enigma to his audience. By speaking to the crowds, albeit at times in an exaggerated fashion, about the things that they know, such as farming, banquets, baking, and other elements of everyday life, Jesus expands their understanding of what they do not know. However, the indirect quality of parables simultaneously blocks spontaneous understanding and therefore requires the audience to engage in additional reflection to ensure that they have truly grasped what is being taught. Likewise, the ability to address an issue by slyly sneaking up on it from behind results in parables that initially conceal their true purpose of convincing the listeners of a new way of thinking or behaving such that the conviction they are meant to induce comes with a surprise kick at the end.

Interpretation of Parables

Interpretation over the centuries. Throughout church history until the nineteenth century, parables were widely interpreted by means of the allegorical method. That is, all the surface details of parables were identified as symbols of some deeper spiritual truth. A classic example of allegorizing is Augustine’s interpretation of the parable of the good Samaritan, whereby he interpreted surface details of the text according to allegorical equations (see table 5). Allegorical interpretations of the same parable by other Christians, however, did not always result in the same interpretations of the symbols. For this reason, most scholars today reject the excessive allegorization of Augustine and others throughout church history. However, how many details in a parable, if any, are to be interpreted allegorically remains a central question in parable interpretation. For instance, in the parable of the mustard seed, are the mustard seed and the plant that it produces allegories for the unobtrusive beginnings yet manifest results of the kingdom? If so, what then of the man and the birds also mentioned in the parable? Are they symbols of a deeper spiritual truth such that the man is to be equated with God, or are they included only to augment the teaching of the parable such that the birds merely highlight the extreme size of the tree into which the seed has grown?

Table 5. Augustine’s Allegorical Interpretation of the Good Samaritan

Details in the Parable and its Allegorical Equivalent:

The man = Adam

Jerusalem = The heavenly city

Jericho = The moon (a symbol of mortality)

The robbers = The devil

Beating the man = Persuading him to sin

Priest and Levite = The Old Testament priesthood

Samaritan = Christ

Binding of wounds = Restraint of sin

Oil = Comfort of hope

Animal = Incarnation

Inn = Church

Innkeeper = Apostle Paul

The work of the German scholar Adolf Jülicher at the end of the nineteenth century has widely affected parable interpretation since that time. Jülicher asserted that parables are not allegories and therefore should not be interpreted allegorically at all. Instead, he argued that parables have only one main point, normally a general, religious statement. Interpreters since Jülicher continue to debate how much of a parable is significant and how many points of correspondence are intended. More-recent views have posited that Jülicher went too far in maintaining a strict distinction between parable and allegory, and many interpreters believe that allegorical elements are present in parables, with perhaps the main characters in a parable being the most likely candidates for allegorical interpretation. This renewed openness to allegorical features in parables is due in part to the recognition that the Gospels record Jesus’ own tendency to offer allegorical interpretations of his parables when his disciples inquire as to their meaning. This is most clearly seen in the parable of the sower and the soils, which includes details such as seed, birds, the sun, and thorns. Jesus reveals that the seed is to be interpreted as the message about the kingdom, the birds stand for the evil one, the sun is representative of persecution because of the gospel, and the thorns indicate worries and wealth (Matt. 13:18–23).

Guidelines for interpreting parables. It is generally best to recognize that not all parables are identical, and that one should consider several possible interpretive strategies before determining which approach best fits any given parable. Nonetheless, some broad guidelines for the interpretation of parables include the following:

1. The characters and plots within parables are literary creations and are not historical. The parable of the lost sheep is not a historical rec-ord of a certain shepherd whose sheep went missing. No actual invitation was issued for the great banquet in the parable. Rather, in a parable the listener is brought into a narrative world controlled by the storyteller and by implication has no need for details that the speaker fails to provide. Therefore, it does not matter whether the shepherd himself was at fault in the loss of the sheep, and the choice of food set before the banquet guests is inconsequential.

2. Parables often follow the principle of end stress. Interpreters should carefully consider how the parable ends when determining the meaning the parable is intended to convey. At times an explanatory conclusion to the parable is included and may be helpful in directing the reader toward the topic that is really being addressed. This is the case in the parable of the two sons, in which Jesus’ concluding explanation identifies tax collectors and prostitutes as those who are entering the kingdom ahead of those who have received John’s prophetic message but failed to accept it.

Recent studies on parables that reflect issues raised by two fields of study respectively known as form criticism and redaction criticism are likely to question the accuracy of such concluding statements as well as any introductory comments to parables that may also be presented in the Gospel text. Many scholars ask if and to what extent the Gospel writers made changes to the parables that they record. They wonder whether it is possible to discern the original context and circumstance in which Jesus relayed his parables, or whether the details of the original context had been forgotten by the time that the evangelists wrote. Could it be that any introductory and concluding comments included with some parables are not authentic to Jesus’ ministry but instead reflect issues that arose in the early church? In spite of the doubts of some, more-conservative scholars have presented arguments for the continued trustworthiness of the Gospel accounts about Jesus’ teaching including introductory or concluding statements associated with his parables.

3. Look for the use of OT symbols in Jesus’ parables. The parables of Jesus and the parables recorded in other rabbinical literature are replete with similar figures and images. Kings, banquets, weddings, farmers, debtors, and more appear with frequency; they perhaps developed into stock images to be used in stories in the ancient world. If such details appear in a parable, the interpreter should consider strongly whether some allegorical meaning is intended whereby a kingly figure represents God, a son represents the people of God, and a banquet indicates a time of coming judgment or reward.

4. Interpreters should exercise extreme caution regarding doctrinal teaching drawn from a parable, particularly if such doctrine cannot be confirmed by the theological teaching found in a nonparabolic portion of Scripture. For instance, in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, is one to conclude that conversations can occur between the dead who reside in hell and those who reside in heaven? Likewise, should one learn that it is possible for the deceased human to be sent back to the living with a message from God? These doctrinal issues seem to be outside the range of teaching intended by the parable, and support for these ideas cannot be found in other biblical texts.

5. In recognition of the indirect nature of the communication in parables, some interpreters question whether a parable’s meaning can be reproduced in propositional language. In other words, can the meaning of a parable be expressed in nonparabolic language, or is some necessary component lost when one changes the form? Similarly, is it possible for people who have heard the story of the good Samaritan repeatedly to be struck by the confrontational force that was central to its initial reception? Not only are the images of Samaritans and Levites foreign to the modern listener, but also the familiarity with the story that has resulted from its retelling over time has domesticated the parable such that the details that were meant to shock and surprise are now anticipated and predictable. In this way, are parables like jokes that have been repeated too many times until one becomes inoculated against the punch line? Because of these concerns about the inability of today’s listeners to truly hear the parable as it was meant to be heard, some interpreters may wish to consider how it could be recast with images common to today’s audience and retold in such a way that the listeners experience the surprising twist that the initial audiences felt.

Pontius Pilate was the fifth Roman governor of Judea. He presided at the trial of Jesus, ultimately sentencing him to death. Based on the account of Josephus, he was appointed to his post in AD 26 or 27 and was removed from it ten years later (c. AD 37) by the governor of the neighboring province of Syria after he mishandled a confrontation with a group of religious fanatics in Samaria. Several previous debacles involving Pilate are known from Josephus and Philo, possibly including the event mentioned in Luke 13:1, where Jesus is told about “the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices.” In one instance, Pilate offended the Judeans by introducing to Jerusalem military standards with images of the emperor. On another occasion, Pilate affronted the population when he built an aqueduct to supply water to Jerusalem, either because he took money from the temple to finance the project or because the aqueduct ran through a cemetery, rendering its water ritually unclean according to Jewish law. While Josephus’s intention is to present the rule of Pilate as tumultuous, and the Gospels are concerned to downplay his role in Jesus’ trial relative to that of the Jewish leaders, his lengthy tenure suggests that he was generally a successful governor and that his term was one of relative quiet governing what was at times a volatile population in Judea.

Pilate’s role in the trial of Jesus is mentioned in all four Gospels. As the governor of Judea, he possessed the power to execute criminals, a power denied to the Jewish authorities who arrested and initiated the charges against Jesus. The Gospels present Pilate as interrogating Jesus primarily about his political activities, reflecting the fact that Pilate’s interest in the trial was not religious or theological, but instead was based on his concern for maintaining order in his province. The general tendency of the Gospel accounts is to minimize the culpability of Pilate in the death of Jesus. According to Matthew’s Gospel, Pilate’s wife told him that Jesus was an innocent man (27:19), and Pilate later disclaimed responsibility for the death of Jesus and publicly washed his hands to signify his own innocence (27:24). According to Luke 23:4, 14, 22; John 19:6, Pilate declared that he had found no charge against Jesus. Eventually, Pilate capitulated because the crowd was growing violent (Matt. 27:24) and because they implicitly threatened to slander Pilate by saying that he was not maintaining the order of the Roman Empire: “If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar” (John 19:12). Luke 23:12 reports that Pilate befriended Herod Antipas as a result of having referred the case to him on the basis of Jesus being a Galilean and therefore Herod’s subject.

Pilate is mentioned in 1 Tim. 6:13 as the audience of a “good confession” made by Jesus. This verse suggests that the trial of Jesus before Pilate was seen by the early church as the model for later confrontations between Christians and the governing authorities, a situation previously predicted by Jesus himself (Matt. 10:18).

Pilate is known not only from the NT, but also from Josephus, Philo, the Roman historian Tacitus, and from an inscription discovered in 1961 in Caesarea identifying Pilate as “prefect” of Judea. This technical term has connotations of military authority and is more specific than the NT’s broader term “governor” (Gk. hēgemōn).

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).

A Byzantine-era pool on the southwest side of the Ophel Hill, near Jerusalem. Siloam is mentioned three times in the NT (Luke 13:4; John 9:7, 11). The Siloam Tunnel is one of two subterranean channels (along with “Hezekiah’s Tunnel”) bringing water from the Gihon spring to this location. These tunnels are best known for the discovery (in 1880) of the so-called Siloam Inscription, which describes the completion of work on those tunnels in some detail. The events mentioned in this inscription generally have been associated with 2 Kings 20 and 2 Chronicles 32, which describe the building projects of King Hezekiah, including “how he made the pool and the tunnel by which he brought water into the city” (2 Kings 20:20) and how he “blocked the upper outlet of the Gihon spring and channeled the water down to the west side of the City of David” (2 Chron. 32:30). The inscription has been dated to the late eighth century BC, based on paleographic data, and usually is associated with the preparations for Hezekiah’s rebellion against Sennacherib in 701 BC.

The extant text of the Siloam Inscription reads as follows:

. . . its tunneling through. And this was the way in which it was tunneled out. While the picks were still (in motion), each man toward his fellow worker, and while there were yet three cubits to be tun[neled through], the voice of a man [could be hea]rd calling to his fellow gang member, for there was a fissure in the rock on the right hand and on the left. Now on the day that the tunneling (was completed), the hewers struck (the rock), each man toward his fellow worker, pick against pick, and the water flowed from the spring to the pool—a distance of twelve hundred cubits. The rock was one [hun]dred cubits high over the heads of the hewers.

The Bible has much to say about suffering. While in the OT suffering is regularly an indication of divine displeasure (Lev. 26:16–36; Deut. 28:20–68; Ps. 44:10–12; Isa. 1:25; cf. Heb. 10:26–31), in the NT it becomes the means by which blessing comes to humanity.

The Bible often shows that sinfulness results in suffering (Gen. 2:17; 6:5–7; Exod. 32:33; 2 Sam. 12:13–18; Rom. 1:18; 1 Cor. 11:27–30). Job’s friends mistakenly assume that he has suffered because of disobedience (Job 4:7–9; 8:3–4, 20; 11:6). Job passionately defends himself (12:4; 23:10), and in the final chapter of the book God commends Job and condemns his friends for their accusations (42:7–8; cf. 1:1, 22; 2:10). The writer makes clear that suffering is not necessarily evidence of sinfulness. Like Job’s friends, Jesus’ disciples assume that blindness is an indication of sinfulness (John 9:1–2). Jesus rejects this simplistic notion of retributive suffering (John 9:3, 6–7; cf. Luke 13:1–5).

The prayers of suffering people are expressed in the sixteen communal and thirty-seven individual laments in the book of Psalms. Within the laments the writers describe their problems, express feelings, make requests, ask questions (“How long, Lord?” [13:1]; “Why have you forsaken me?” [22:1]), and lodge complaints against God (“My eyes fail, looking for my God [69:3]), enemies (“You have made us an object of derision to our neighbors, and our enemies mock us” [80:6]), and even themselves (“I am a worm and not a man” [22:6]).

The NT writers reveal that Jesus’ suffering was prophesied in the OT (Mark 9:12; 14:21; Luke 18:31–32; 24:46; Acts 3:18; 17:3; 26:22–23; 1 Pet. 1:11; referring to OT texts such as Ps. 22; Isa. 52:13–53:12; Zech. 13:7). The Lord Jesus is presented as the answer to human suffering: (1) Through the incarnation, God’s Son personally experienced human suffering (Phil. 2:6–8; Heb. 2:9; 5:8). (2) Through his suffering, Christ paid the price for sin (Rom. 4:25; 3:25–26), so that believers are set free from sin (Rom. 6:6, 18, 22) and helped in temptation (Heb. 2:18). (3) Christ Jesus intercedes for his suffering followers (Rom. 8:34–35). (4) Christ is the example in suffering (1 Pet. 2:21; 4:1; cf. Phil. 3:10; 2 Cor. 1:5; 4:10; 1 Pet. 4:13), and though he died once for sins (Heb. 10:12), he continues to suffer as his church suffers (Acts 9:4–5). (5) Christ provides hope of resurrection (Rom. 6:5; 1 Cor. 15:20–26; Phil. 3:10–11) and a future life without suffering or death (Rev. 21:4).

There are many NT examples of suffering believers (John 15:20–21; Acts 4:3; 5:18; 7:57–60; 8:1–3; 12:1–5; 14:19; 16:22–24; 18:17; 2 Cor. 6:4–5, 8–10; Heb. 10:32; 1 Pet. 5:9; Rev. 2:10). Suffering is part of God’s plan for his people (Acts 9:16; 1 Thess. 3:2–4) and is part of what it means to be a follower of Christ Jesus (Acts 14:22; Rom. 8:17; Phil. 1:29; 1 Pet. 2:21; 4:12).

The NT writers repeatedly mention the benefits of suffering, for it has become part of God’s work of redemption. The suffering of believers accompanies the proclamation and advancement of the gospel (Acts 5:41–42; 9:15–16; 2 Cor. 4:10–11; 6:2–10; Phil. 1:12, 27–29; 1 Thess. 2:14–16; 2 Tim. 1:8; 4:5) and results in salvation (Matt. 10:22; 2 Cor. 1:6; 1 Thess. 2:16; 2 Tim. 2:10; Heb. 10:39), faith (Heb. 10:32–34, 38–39; 1 Pet. 1:7), the kingdom of God (Acts 14:22), resurrection from the dead (Phil. 3:10–11), and the crown of life (Rev. 2:10). It is an essential part of the development toward Christian maturity (Rom. 5:3–4; 2 Cor. 4:11; Heb. 12:4; James 1:3–4; 1 Pet. 1:7; 4:1).

Suffering is associated with knowing Christ (Phil. 3:10); daily inward renewal (2 Cor. 4:16); purity, understanding, patience, kindness, sincere love, truthful speech, the power of God (2 Cor. 4:4–10); comfort and endurance (2 Cor. 1:6); obedience (Heb. 5:8); blessing (1 Pet. 3:14; 4:14); glory (Rom. 8:17; 2 Cor. 4:17); and joy (Matt. 5:12; Acts 5:41; 2 Cor. 6:10; 12:10; James 1:2; 1 Pet. 1:6; 4:13). Other positive results of Christian suffering include perseverance (Rom. 5:3; James 1:3), character and hope (Rom. 5:4), strength (2 Cor. 12:10), and maturity and completeness (James 1:4). Present suffering is light and momentary when compared to future glory (Matt. 5:10–12; Acts 14:22; Rom. 8:18; 2 Cor. 4:17; Heb. 10:34–36; 1 Pet. 1:5–7; 4:12–13).

Throughout the Bible, believers are instructed to help those who suffer. The OT law provides principles for assisting the poor, the disadvantaged, and the oppressed (Exod. 20:10; 21:2; 23:11; Lev. 19:13, 34; 25:10, 35; Deut. 14:28–29; 15:1–2; 24:19–21). Jesus regularly taught his followers to help the poor (Matt. 5:42; 6:3; 19:21; 25:34–36; Luke 4:18; 12:33; 14:13, 21). It is believers’ responsibility to show mercy (Matt. 5:7; 9:13), be generous (Rom. 12:8; 2 Cor. 8:7; 1 Tim. 6:18), mourn with mourners (Rom. 12:15), carry other’s burdens (Gal. 6:1–2), and visit prisoners (Matt. 25:36, 43). See also Servant of the Lord.

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).

Grape-producing plants are widely cultivated in Palestine. The first biblical reference to vine cultivation appears in Gen. 9:20, where the restoration of the earth is implied by Noah’s planting of a vineyard. The appearance of the vine in Pharaoh’s chief cupbearer’s dream implies widespread vine cultivation in Egypt (Gen. 40:9–11). Before the Israelites’ entry, the land of Canaan was also famous for the production of grapes and wine (cf. Num. 13:23; Deut. 6:11; 8:8). Several places around the region are named in the OT for their fruitful vines: Eshkol (Num. 13:23), Sorek (Judg. 16:4), Sibmah, Heshbon, Jazer, Elealeh (Isa. 16:8–10), Helbon (Ezek. 27:18), Lebanon (Hos. 14:7), and En Gedi (Song 1:14).

Vine cultivation. Vine cultivation is detailed in the Bible. A hilly terrain is terraced, stones are cleared, and soil is plowed (Ps. 80:9; Isa. 5:2). The walls are built up with stones, often with a hedge of thorny bushes, to protect the vineyard from thieves and wild animals (Isa. 5:2). Then young vines are planted where water is supplied (Ezek. 19:10). As their branches develop, they are raised up on supports (Ezek. 17:6). In the spring the vines are pruned so that they will bear good grapes (Lev. 25:3; John 15:2). Winepresses are hewn out of wood or rocky ground (Isa. 5:2). A watchtower is erected to overlook the vineyard, especially as the harvest season draws near (Job 27:18; Isa. 1:8; 27:3). When the grapes are ripe, they are gathered in baskets and taken to winepresses (Hos. 9:2), while some are dried into raisins. When the harvest is done, the poor in the village are allowed to enter the vineyard to gather the gleanings (Lev. 19:10; Deut. 24:21; cf. Isa. 24:13; Jer. 49:9; Mic. 7:1).

Since the production of grapes was of major importance to the Israelites, the continuing cycle of vine cultivation meant national peace and security (cf. “under their own vine and under their own fig tree” in 1 Kings 4:25; Mic. 4:4; Zech. 3:10; joy of the harvest in Isa. 16:10; Jer. 48:33). Thus, the characteristic expression of planting vineyards and consuming their fruits signals God’s blessing (2 Kings 19:29; Ps. 107:37; Isa. 65:21–22; Jer. 31:5; 40:12; Ezek. 28:26; Amos 9:14), whereas not enjoying the fruit signifies misfortune (Deut. 20:6) or God’s judgment (Deut. 28:30; Ps. 78:47; Jer. 8:13; Amos 5:11; Hab. 3:17; Zeph. 1:13). Likewise, a feast with wine signifies God’s blessing (Isa. 25:6; 55:1; Jer. 31:12; Joel 2:19; cf. Jesus turning water into wine [John 2:1–11]), while the lack of wine means God’s judgment (Isa. 24:9, 11; 62:8; Hos. 2:9; 9:2; Joel 1:10).

Old Testament. The vine and the vineyard are important metaphors in the OT. The fruitfulness of the vine often symbolizes the fruitfulness or blessedness of a person (e.g., Joseph in Gen. 49:22; a fruitful wife in Ps. 128:3). In Song of Songs the vineyard is not only the main place of love (2:13, 15; 6:11; 7:12) but also a metaphor for the woman’s body (8:11); also, the “beloved” is compared to “henna blossoms from the vineyards of En Gedi” (1:14), and her breasts to the “clusters of grapes on the vine” (7:8).

The metaphors of the vine and the vineyard are also used of God’s people. In Ps. 80:8–13 Israel’s history is presented in terms of the vine-cultivation cycle (cf. Jer. 2:21; Hos. 10:1). A similar story is heard in Isa. 5:1–7, which compares the Israelites’ lack of justice and righteousness to the bearing of wild grapes (cf. “vine of Sodom” in Deut. 32:32; “a corrupt, wild vine” in Jer. 2:21). Ezekiel also uses the vine metaphor in rebuking the Israelites’ iniquity (Ezek. 15:2–4; 17:3–10; 19:10–14). If the aforementioned passages describe Israel’s history from its birth to judgment, Isa. 27:2–6 presents God’s promise of restoration through the story of the restored vineyard.

New Testament. In five parables Jesus refers to vines and cultivation (Matt. 9:17 pars.; 20:1–16; 21:28–32; 21:33–46 pars.; Luke 13:6–9). Notable is the fact that God often is portrayed as the owner of the vineyard (Matt. 20:1; 21:28, 33; Luke 13:6). In Rev. 14:18–20 God’s judgment upon his enemies is described by means of the imagery of the vine harvest, in which the enemies are trampled like harvested grapes in the “great winepress of God’s wrath” (cf. Isa. 63:1–6; Joel 3:13). In the vine metaphor in John 15:1–8, Jesus identifies God as the farmer, himself as the “true vine,” and the believers as its branches. No longer are God’s people identified as the vine, which is expected to bear good fruits; rather, Jesus is the vine, and the believers are his branches. So the fruitfulness of the branches depends on their adherence to the vine. Jesus’ use of the “fruit of the vine” at the Last Supper as the symbol of his atoning blood can be compared to his metaphorical self-identification as the vine (Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18). See also Plants.

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).

Binding can mean physically restraining a person or people (Judg. 15:13; 2 Kings 25:7; Job 16:8; Pss. 119:61; 149:8), mending, as with a wound (Isa. 61:1; Ezek. 34:16; Hos. 6:1), or taking a legally constraining oath (1 Sam. 14:27–30; Neh. 10:29; Jer. 50:5). The opposite of binding is loosing or setting free, which can describe literally being freed from bonds (e.g., Acts 16:26) or the release from something that is binding.

The law, a binding covenant between Israel and God, is to be literally bound on one’s forehead as a reminder (Deut. 6:8; 11:18). Non-Israelites who wish to identify with the God of Israel can bind themselves to his laws (Isa. 56:6). In Num. 30:6, 9, 13, an oath taken by a young woman still in her father’s house will be binding only if the father is not against it. If he is against it, it is not binding and she is loosed from it (30:5). This is the same in the case of a married woman, whose approval has to come from the husband. However, for widows or divorced women, all pledges they make are binding since there are no men in their lives to void the pledges (30:9).

While contracts were binding, some had time limits. For example, the seventh year and the fiftieth year (Jubilee) allowed for cancellation of such binding contracts as slavery or land ownership (Lev. 25:10–54; 27:24).

The binding of Isaac (Gen. 22), traditionally known as the Akedah, has theological significance for both Christians and Jews. It is interpreted as a form of resurrection, a coming from the dead for Isaac after Yahweh had instructed his father, Abraham, to sacrifice him (Heb. 11:17–19). God inquires of Job whether he can “bind the chains of the Pleiades” or “loosen Orion’s belt” (Job 38:31).

The book of Proverbs encourages the wise to metaphorically bind love and faithfulness around their necks (3:3) and their parents’ commands and teachings to the heart (6:21) and the finger (7:3); it also talks of folly being bound up in the heart of a child (22:15), perhaps alluded to by Paul in Rom. 11:32 when he says that God has bound all people to disobedience that he may have mercy on them.

Introducing his ministry in Luke 4:18, Jesus quotes Isa. 61:1, which talks of binding up the brokenhearted, a reference to his healing ministry. Further, binding and loosing are found in Jesus’ commissioning of his disciples (Matt. 16:19; 18:18; cf. John 20:23), where it may be referring to the binding of demons and loosing of demoniacs bound or oppressed by demons (cf. Mark 3:14–16; 6:7; Luke 13:6). Since Jesus has the power to bind and loose (John 8:36), he chooses to empower his followers to do the same. Binding Satan is the subject of the ultimate eschatological battle in Jewish lore (T. Levi 18:11–12) and becomes central in Christianity. Jesus encounters satanic forces embodied in humans and looses such people from the chains of Satan (Mark 5:3; Luke 13:12, 16). Ultimately, Satan is to be bound for a millennium and loosed only for eternal damnation (Rev. 20:1–3).

Paul invokes Jewish law about marriage by claiming that one is bound in marriage only as long as one’s partner is alive (Rom. 7:2). In this way, Paul explains how Christians are dead to the law, because Jesus has died on their behalf, thus setting them free from the law (Rom. 7:4–6; cf. Heb. 9:15). To the Corinthians also he talks of the binding nature of marriage but with a caveat: if the marriage is between a believer and a nonbeliever, and if the nonbeliever leaves, then the believer is not bound (1 Cor. 7). But for Paul, being set free from sin (Rom. 8:2) means being bound to God (6:22).

A strict division between fortresses and cities was not possible in much of the ancient world, since many major towns were surrounded with protective walls and fortifications. Royal figures, however, did have stand-alone fortresses built within some towns. In 2 Sam. 5:7–9 David captures Zion, a fortress-city, from the Jebusites (see also 1 Chron. 11:5–7). Solomon further enhances the defensive fortifications of Jerusalem (1 Kings 3:1; 2 Chron. 2:1), as do several kings who come after him (e.g., 1 Kings 15:18; 16:18; 18:3; 2 Kings 11:5; 2 Chron. 26:9, 15).

Royal residences, such as those of the pharaohs (Gen. 12:15) and of the kings of Babylon (2 Kings 20:18; Dan. 1:4), Tyre (2 Sam. 24:7), Samaria (2 Kings 15:25), and Persia (Esther 1:5; 5:1; 7:7–8), also served as castles. In Nehemiah’s time, Hananiah is made ruler of the palace fort in Jerusalem (Neh. 2:8; 7:2). Fortified towers also contributed to the defensive equipment of many ancient cities (Gen. 11:1–9; 35:21; Judg. 8:8–9, 17; 9:46, 49; Neh. 3:1; 12:39; Song 4:4; Luke 13:4).

In addition to palaces and fortified cities, numerous smaller castle-type structures are mentioned in the Bible. These forts, usually fairly small, were important for guarding trade routes and major entrance points into a kingdom, and they allowed a ruler to exercise control over a much larger region than would have been possible otherwise. Normally these structures were composed of stone, hardened mud-brick, or a combination of the two, and constituted a tightly packed arrangement of walls, gates, and guard towers. A system of fortresses existed throughout Israel in the time of the unified monarchy, such as those built by David throughout Aram (2 Sam. 8:6) and Edom (2 Sam. 8:14; 1 Chron. 18:13), and those built by Solomon (1 Kings 9:19). Later, Rehoboam expanded this network of forts, which included the strong fortress at Lachish, and further built up the defensive capabilities of many of the towns in Judah (2 Chron. 11:5–11). The later kings Jehoshaphat and Jotham continued this work of fortress building throughout Judah (2 Chron. 17:12; 27:4).

In the four centuries after the conquests of Alexander the Great, new fortresses were built throughout what would become the Roman Empire, including Herod the Great’s palace in Caesarea (Acts 23:35). The Antonia Fortress (see Acts 21:31–37; 22:24; 23:10, 16, 32) overlooked the temple area in Jerusalem and was the headquarters of the Roman army cohort stationed in the city. Herod’s palace on the western hill of Jerusalem may have been the headquarters of Roman governors of Judea, although the Antonia Fortress is also a possible location for this building (see Matt. 27:27; Mark 15:16; John 18:28, 33; 19:9).

The image of a fortress is often invoked in poetic contexts in the Bible to signify God’s unfailing protection (2 Sam. 22:2; Pss. 18:2; 31:2; 46:8; 62:2; 91:2; 144:2; Prov. 14:26; Isa. 25:4; Jer. 16:19). Prophetic denunciation of the fortresses of Israel’s enemies is common in the OT (Isa. 23:11, 13–14; Jer. 49:27; Dan. 11; Amos 1). The destruction of Israel’s own fortresses, especially Jerusalem, is also a common judgment motif in the prophets (Isa. 25:12; Jer. 6:5; 17:27; Hos. 8:14). See also Fort, Fortification.

An innate awareness of wrong, with an inclination toward thinking and acting rightly. The OT describes moral awareness as a willingness to obey God’s revealed will (Deut. 30:14; Ps. 1:1–2; Prov. 1:7). People are not presented as morally perfect, but, to the degree of their knowledge, they are expected to act rightly (Gen. 4:1–16; 1 Sam. 25:31). Abimelek, king of Gerar, appeals to ignorance because of Abraham’s deception (Gen. 20:1–7). Job appeals to the purity of his conscience (Job 27:6).

A fuller revelation of God’s will is given in the Mosaic law. God gives commandments in part to heighten the Israelites’ awareness concerning right and wrong, so that with their obedience they might enjoy a covenant relationship within God’s holy presence (e.g., Deut. 28:1–14). This informed social conscience was intended to curb evil behavior (Gal. 3:19). The author of Judges anticipates the need for the law by complaining that “everyone did as they saw fit” (17:6; 21:25).

However, the biblical narrative also makes room for paradoxical situations and competing values, which complicate moral reasoning (e.g., Gen. 38; Judg. 11:29–40). In the law, God expressly forbids child sacrifice, but he commands Abraham to present his son Isaac as a burnt offering (Gen. 22:1–14). On a rooftop Peter receives a vision in which the Lord commands him to kill and eat unclean animals (Acts 10:1–8). In both cases, God tests faith by commanding the believer to betray personal conscience, to open his heart to a fuller revelation of the divine plan. Even the moral reasoning of God is not always straightforward. God is committed to doing right, but he also weighs decisions with compassion and mercy. Abraham and Moses appeal to God’s character, and they are able to intercede on behalf of sinful people (Gen. 18:22–33; Exod. 32). Jonah even comes to despise this quality of God’s character, which appears to compromise justice (4:1–11).

These tensions anticipate the gospel, which claims that God loves sinners and has provided a means to express mercy toward them without compromising justice (Rom. 3:21–26). Like the Mosaic law, the gospel also provides further revelation into God’s will and therefore a more informed conscience. With citations drawn from throughout the OT, Paul claims that all people suffer from a distorted conscience (Rom. 3:9–20). God has spoken to all people through their conscience, but despite this innate awareness of right and wrong, both Jews, who possess God’s commandments, and non-Jews, who know something about God from nature (creation), have compromised their own ethical stance, so that they have only themselves to blame (1:18–32). This universal inner conflict, emphasized by Jesus and Paul, removes appealing to one’s conscience as a means of justification at the future judgment (Mark 7:1–23; Luke 13:1–5, 22–30). Furthermore, this habitual compromising leads to present self-deception and a skewed perception of the world.

But through repentance and faith in the gospel, returning to God (the Creator), a person’s conscience may be renewed and aligned with the mind and actions of Jesus Christ (Rom. 12:1–2; 1 Cor. 2:16). Despite this restoration, the complexity of moral reasoning is not always overcome. Indeed, living in Christ with others from different cultural backgrounds and values often requires deeper reflection. Paul acknowledges that there can be different perceptions by believers, which can lead to different practices. Eating meat that may have been sacrificed to idols is neutral or wrong depending upon one’s conscience and that of the observer (1 Cor. 8:1–3). He applies the same perspective to Jewish calendar observance and food laws (Rom. 14:1–23; but see Gal. 4:8–11). But the apostle also presumes that personal conscience can grow in knowledge. Ultimately, believers’ consciences should be informed by relating everything to the lordship of Christ (Rom. 2:15; 9:1; 2 Cor. 1:12; 4:2; 5:11), meditating on the goodness of all creation (Titus 1:10–16), and placing the well-being of others before their own (Phil. 2:1–11).

Contrary to common uses of the word “forgiveness,” which are highly influenced by modernity’s interest in psychology, the biblical concept identifies forgiveness as a theological issue to be understood in relational categories. Biblically speaking, to forgive is less about changing feelings (emotions) and more about an actual restoration of a relationship. It is about making a wrong right, a process that usually is both costly and painful. To capture the biblical sense, the English word “pardon” may prove more helpful.

Terminology

Principally, God forgives by removing the guilt from transgressors and thereby releasing them from their deserved penalty. The OT term kipper speaks to the covering of sin (Deut. 21:8; Ps. 78:38; Jer. 18:23), and its use in connection with sacrifice signifies the idea of atonement. Like salakh, it communicates exclusively God’s forgiveness of humans (Num. 30:5; Amos 7:2). The term nasa’ refers to the removal of guilt, God lifting the burden of sin from the sinner (Exod. 32:32; Num. 14:19), but it also can be used of forgiveness between humans (Gen. 50:17).

In the NT, verbs such as aphiēmi (noun aphesis) and apolyō connote the idea of sending away or releasing, whereas (epi)kalyptō expresses the idea of covering. Other terms, such as paresis (“passing over” [Rom. 3:25]) further extend the idea of God’s forgiveness: debt is canceled; God is exercising his forbearing love. Paul’s preferred term is charizomai, which underscores the close correlation between grace and forgiveness (Rom. 8:32; Eph. 4:32; Col. 2:13; 3:13).

God’s Forgiveness

Forgiveness expresses the character of the merciful God, who eagerly pardons sinners who confess their sins, repent of their transgressions, and express this through proper actions. Forgiveness is never a matter of a human right; it is exclusively a gracious expression of God’s loving care. Human need for forgiveness stems from actions arising from their fallen nature. These actions (or nonactions), whether done deliberately or coincidentally, destroy people’s relationship with God and can be restored only by God’s forgiving mercy (Eph. 2:1).

Under the Mosaic covenant, sin placed offenders under God’s wrath among the ungodly. Rescue from this fate could be obtained by God’s forgiveness alone, which was attained through repentance and sacrifice. Although sacrifice was necessary to express true repentance, it is a mistake to consider it a payment that could purchase God’s forgiveness (1 Sam. 15:22; Prov. 21:3; Eccles. 5:1; Hos. 6:6). The forgiveness of God remains his free, undeserved gift.

Although the sacrificial system is done away with, or rather completed, through Christ (Heb. 10:12), NT teaching continues to recognize conditions for forgiveness. Since forgiveness restores relationship, the offender remains involved and must desire the restoration (Luke 13:3; 24:47; Acts 2:38). God does not grant his forgiveness without consideration of the offending party.

Jesus expresses this most clearly in the parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11–24). The son rebels against his father, squanders his wealth, and violates their relationship. The gracious and loving father remains willing to restore the relationship, but the reunion does not occur until the prodigal replaces rebellion with repentance; then, before he can even utter his sorrow, the eager father welcomes him back to a restored relationship. God remains free to forgive or not forgive, but sinners can rest assured of God’s relationship-restoring forgiveness when they seek it in repentance. The forgiveness that God grants is full and restores things to an “as before” situation (cf. Ps. 103:12; Jer. 31:34), a point that the older son in the parable (Luke 15:25–32), who exemplifies religious self-righteousness, did not comprehend.

Human Forgiveness

The biblical description of forgiveness between humans is rooted in this theological understanding and articulates a clear analogy between divine and human forgiveness. Human relationship with God provides a pattern for their relationship to each other (Matt. 5:23–24; 6:12, 14–15). They forgive because they have been forgiven (Luke 7:41–47; Col. 3:13). If, or when, their forgiveness of others remains absent, it questions, or even jeopardizes, their own relationship with God (Matt. 18:22–35).

Again, since forgiveness is a theological matter, the one being wronged remains obligated to work for the restoration of the relationship even if the wrongdoer does not repent. The one wronged should seek to win the offender back by showing mercy and eagerness to forgive as learned from God (Rom. 12:19–20). There is no formula for this God-inspired forgiveness and no limit to its zeal. Jesus met Peter’s suggestion that the offer of forgiveness could be exhausted with an unequivocal no (Matt. 18:21–22). The offended must offer forgiveness every time the wrongdoer asks for it (Luke 17:3–4).

Most radical is the biblical mandate to forgive enemies. The OT often follows the common ancient Near Eastern notion that enemies are expressions of foreign deities, whom their own god(s) desires to destroy. It was therefore unimaginable that Israel (or Yahweh) should forgive a pagan god (e.g., Ps. 137:8–9). Jesus transforms this thinking and makes forgiveness a Christian duty (Matt. 5:43–48; cf. Rom. 12:20).

Old Testament

The English word “governor” is used to translate a number of Hebrew words. The term indicates one who has been designated with authority over a certain region, especially under the rule of a king or emperor. The position of governor is found throughout the Pentateuch, the Writings, and the Prophets. Notable in the OT are the governors appointed by the foreign kings both at home and in occupied territories.

There are several notable governors in the OT. After being sold into slavery in Egypt, Joseph was exalted to governor of Egypt, second only to the king. Thus, his brothers bowed before him (Gen. 42:6). Solomon, during his reign, established twelve governors, each one responsible for supplying provisions to the king one month out of the year (1 Kings 4:7), and Solomon received tribute from them (1 Kings 10:15; 2 Chron. 9:14).

One notable governor was Gedaliah, ruler of the Jewish remnant left in Judah during the deportation, who reported to the king of Babylon (Jer. 40:11). Later, he was assassinated by Ishmael (Jer. 41:2). This provoked great fear, causing some to flee to Egypt (Jer. 41:17–18).

Another notable individual who governed the Jewish people upon their return to Jerusalem after the captivity was Sheshbazzar, governor under Cyrus (Ezra 5:14). He had been entrusted with the vessels for the house of God in Jerusalem that had been taken by Nebuchadnezzar (1:7–8). This same Sheshbazzar had begun building the foundation of the temple by the legal decree of Cyrus the king (5:14–6:6). Subsequently, Zerubbabel (under Darius I) became governor and completed the foundation and the rest of the temple (Ezra 3–6; see also Hag. 1:1–15). He and the other workers are said to have had their spirits stirred to do the work (Hag. 1:14).

Nehemiah, who led the people in restoring the wall of Jerusalem for the safety and restoration of the city, was governor over his people (under Artaxerxes I) and had a true heart of compassion toward the poor. His sympathy for them was so deep that he did not take the regular allotment of food and other goods that the other governors took by right (Neh. 5:14–15). The governors who had gone before ruled and taxed heavily. Nehemiah deemed this an illegitimate way to live among God’s people. At the reading of the law along with Ezra the priest and the other Levites, Nehemiah directed the attention of the people to the proper response to the word of God (Neh. 8:9–10).

New Testament

In the NT, the most common word for governor is hēgemōn. As in the OT, governors were appointed by higher authorities who delegated to them the authority to rule.

The office of governor was very important in Israel during the NT period. Herod the Great had ruled Israel during the years 37–4 BC. At his death in 4 BC, three of his sons took over the kingdom with the approval of Caesar Augustus. Archelaus ruled Judea and Samaria, Herod Antipas (Herod the Tetrarch) was tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, and Philip was tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitus (see Luke 3:1; Josephus, J.W. 2.93–97). The Jewish people revolted against Archelaus in the ninth year, and he was stripped of his rulership and banished in AD 6 (Josephus, J.W. 2.111). His kingdom was turned into a Roman province, with Coponius ruling as governor. From this time until the reign of Herod Agrippa I, Judea was ruled by a line of governors (called “prefects” or “procurators”). In AD 41 Herod Agrippa I began to rule and eventually governed roughly the same territory as did Herod the Great, his grandfather. His rule, however, lasted only three years. In the period AD 44–66 governors again ruled in Judea, among them Felix and Festus, with whom the apostle Paul had audience.

Of note among these governors was Pontius Pilate, appointed in AD 26 by Tiberius. Pilate’s fortunes seemed to wax and wane with those of General Sejanus, with whom he shared many political and social views. When he first arrived in Palestine, Pilate provoked protests by secretly bringing army standards bearing the images of Roman emperors—idols in Jewish eyes—into Jerusalem (Josephus, Ant. 18.55–59). On another occasion demonstrations broke out when Pilate used money from the temple treasury to build an aqueduct for Jerusalem (Josephus, Ant. 18.60–62). Pilate sent soldiers to surround and attack the protestors, many of whom were killed. Luke 13:1 refers to a similar episode near the temple mount in which Pilate massacred some Galileans, “whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices.” Typical of the Romans, Pilate met protest with ruthless and overwhelming force. At Jesus’ trial, though Pilate knew that Jesus was innocent (John 18:38), he condemned Jesus to crucifixion to avoid antagonizing the religious leaders. This kind of action was characteristic of Pilate. He was an unscrupulous and self-seeking leader who loathed the Jewish leadership but feared antagonizing them. Josephus notes that during the tumult of the Samaritans (to assemble at Mount Gerizim), Pilate put them to flight, killing some of them. The Samaritans complained about Pilate’s murderous ways to Vitellius, who was friendly to them, and he recalled Pilate to Rome to answer before Tiberius, but Pilate took so long getting there that Tiberius was dead when he finally arrived (Josephus, Ant. 18.85–89). Pilate was eventually removed from office, and we hear nothing else from him.

Two other Judean governors who appear in the NT are Felix and Festus, who played a role in the apostle Paul’s trial (Acts 24–26). Felix’s wife, Drusilla, was a Jewess, and she was with him at Paul’s second hearing. On this second occasion Paul reasoned powerfully with Felix, so much so that Felix became frightened about the future and sent Paul away. His fear notwithstanding, Felix sought to exploit the situation for monetary gain (no doubt, bribes were common), but Paul made no response. Two years later Felix was replaced by the next governor, Porcius Festus. Festus heard the defense of Paul (Acts 26) and sent him to Rome after his appeal, though both Festus and Herod agreed that Paul could have been set free had he not appealed to Caesar (Acts 26:30–32).

On one occasion in the NT, the word “governor” is translated from the word ethnarchēs. Aretas of the Nabateans was the ethnarch in Damascus and laid siege to capture the apostle Paul, but Paul escaped through a window in the wall, probably at night (2 Cor. 11:32–33).

As opposed to a governor, a “proconsul” (anthypatos) was a ruler of a senatorial province and so was appointed by the Roman senate rather than the emperor. These provinces were usually more loyal and peaceful and thus had little need of a strong military presence. Such was the case with the proconsul on Cyprus who lived in Paphos, Sergius Paulus. This man is noted by Luke as intelligent and ready to hear the message of Paul and Barnabas. The sorcerer Elymas (Bar-Jesus) sought to turn the proconsul from the faith and so was struck blind at Paul’s command. This Roman proconsul, a man of political stature on Cyprus, then became a believer (Acts 13:4–12). Another proconsul, Gallio, ruled in Achaia during Paul’s sojourn there on his second missionary journey. From information gained from ancient written sources, chiefly the Gallio Inscription, the beginning of his tenure as proconsul in Achaia occurred between AD 50 and 52. When Paul was brought to trial before Gallio, Gallio tossed the case out as a religious squabble (Acts 18:12–16). In another reference to the proconsulate, Paul’s detractors in Ephesus were told by the town secretary to take their complaints against Paul to the proconsuls of that area, lest they be accused of provoking a riot and an illegal assembly (19:38–41).

Jesus himself had previously prophesied that the disciples would testify before kings and governors (Matt. 10:18), something that was fulfilled by Paul as he spoke before Herod, Felix, Festus, and Nero. Additionally, Luke noted Quirinius as the governor of Syria when the first census was taken, around the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:2).

The apostles note that the community of faith is to submit to rulers such as governors as they execute their God-ordained task, since the praise of good and punishment of evil is also the interest of the divine creator and ordainer of such persons (1 Pet. 2:14; cf. Rom. 13:1–5). The community of faith is also to pray for all in authority (including governors, though not mentioned specifically), so that the church will be able to lead a quiet existence in godliness (1 Tim. 2:1–2).

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).

Pontius Pilate was the fifth Roman governor of Judea. He presided at the trial of Jesus, ultimately sentencing him to death. Based on the account of Josephus, he was appointed to his post in AD 26 or 27 and was removed from it ten years later (c. AD 37) by the governor of the neighboring province of Syria after he mishandled a confrontation with a group of religious fanatics in Samaria. Several previous debacles involving Pilate are known from Josephus and Philo, possibly including the event mentioned in Luke 13:1, where Jesus is told about “the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices.” In one instance, Pilate offended the Judeans by introducing to Jerusalem military standards with images of the emperor. On another occasion, Pilate affronted the population when he built an aqueduct to supply water to Jerusalem, either because he took money from the temple to finance the project or because the aqueduct ran through a cemetery, rendering its water ritually unclean according to Jewish law. While Josephus’s intention is to present the rule of Pilate as tumultuous, and the Gospels are concerned to downplay his role in Jesus’ trial relative to that of the Jewish leaders, his lengthy tenure suggests that he was generally a successful governor and that his term was one of relative quiet governing what was at times a volatile population in Judea.

Pilate’s role in the trial of Jesus is mentioned in all four Gospels. As the governor of Judea, he possessed the power to execute criminals, a power denied to the Jewish authorities who arrested and initiated the charges against Jesus. The Gospels present Pilate as interrogating Jesus primarily about his political activities, reflecting the fact that Pilate’s interest in the trial was not religious or theological, but instead was based on his concern for maintaining order in his province. The general tendency of the Gospel accounts is to minimize the culpability of Pilate in the death of Jesus. According to Matthew’s Gospel, Pilate’s wife told him that Jesus was an innocent man (27:19), and Pilate later disclaimed responsibility for the death of Jesus and publicly washed his hands to signify his own innocence (27:24). According to Luke 23:4, 14, 22; John 19:6, Pilate declared that he had found no charge against Jesus. Eventually, Pilate capitulated because the crowd was growing violent (Matt. 27:24) and because they implicitly threatened to slander Pilate by saying that he was not maintaining the order of the Roman Empire: “If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar” (John 19:12). Luke 23:12 reports that Pilate befriended Herod Antipas as a result of having referred the case to him on the basis of Jesus being a Galilean and therefore Herod’s subject.

Pilate is mentioned in 1 Tim. 6:13 as the audience of a “good confession” made by Jesus. This verse suggests that the trial of Jesus before Pilate was seen by the early church as the model for later confrontations between Christians and the governing authorities, a situation previously predicted by Jesus himself (Matt. 10:18).

Pilate is known not only from the NT, but also from Josephus, Philo, the Roman historian Tacitus, and from an inscription discovered in 1961 in Caesarea identifying Pilate as “prefect” of Judea. This technical term has connotations of military authority and is more specific than the NT’s broader term “governor” (Gk. hēgemōn).

Grape-producing plants are widely cultivated in Palestine. The first biblical reference to vine cultivation appears in Gen. 9:20, where the restoration of the earth is implied by Noah’s planting of a vineyard. The appearance of the vine in Pharaoh’s chief cupbearer’s dream implies widespread vine cultivation in Egypt (Gen. 40:9–11). Before the Israelites’ entry, the land of Canaan was also famous for the production of grapes and wine (cf. Num. 13:23; Deut. 6:11; 8:8). Several places around the region are named in the OT for their fruitful vines: Eshkol (Num. 13:23), Sorek (Judg. 16:4), Sibmah, Heshbon, Jazer, Elealeh (Isa. 16:8–10), Helbon (Ezek. 27:18), Lebanon (Hos. 14:7), and En Gedi (Song 1:14).

Vine cultivation. Vine cultivation is detailed in the Bible. A hilly terrain is terraced, stones are cleared, and soil is plowed (Ps. 80:9; Isa. 5:2). The walls are built up with stones, often with a hedge of thorny bushes, to protect the vineyard from thieves and wild animals (Isa. 5:2). Then young vines are planted where water is supplied (Ezek. 19:10). As their branches develop, they are raised up on supports (Ezek. 17:6). In the spring the vines are pruned so that they will bear good grapes (Lev. 25:3; John 15:2). Winepresses are hewn out of wood or rocky ground (Isa. 5:2). A watchtower is erected to overlook the vineyard, especially as the harvest season draws near (Job 27:18; Isa. 1:8; 27:3). When the grapes are ripe, they are gathered in baskets and taken to winepresses (Hos. 9:2), while some are dried into raisins. When the harvest is done, the poor in the village are allowed to enter the vineyard to gather the gleanings (Lev. 19:10; Deut. 24:21; cf. Isa. 24:13; Jer. 49:9; Mic. 7:1).

Since the production of grapes was of major importance to the Israelites, the continuing cycle of vine cultivation meant national peace and security (cf. “under their own vine and under their own fig tree” in 1 Kings 4:25; Mic. 4:4; Zech. 3:10; joy of the harvest in Isa. 16:10; Jer. 48:33). Thus, the characteristic expression of planting vineyards and consuming their fruits signals God’s blessing (2 Kings 19:29; Ps. 107:37; Isa. 65:21–22; Jer. 31:5; 40:12; Ezek. 28:26; Amos 9:14), whereas not enjoying the fruit signifies misfortune (Deut. 20:6) or God’s judgment (Deut. 28:30; Ps. 78:47; Jer. 8:13; Amos 5:11; Hab. 3:17; Zeph. 1:13). Likewise, a feast with wine signifies God’s blessing (Isa. 25:6; 55:1; Jer. 31:12; Joel 2:19; cf. Jesus turning water into wine [John 2:1–11]), while the lack of wine means God’s judgment (Isa. 24:9, 11; 62:8; Hos. 2:9; 9:2; Joel 1:10).

Old Testament. The vine and the vineyard are important metaphors in the OT. The fruitfulness of the vine often symbolizes the fruitfulness or blessedness of a person (e.g., Joseph in Gen. 49:22; a fruitful wife in Ps. 128:3). In Song of Songs the vineyard is not only the main place of love (2:13, 15; 6:11; 7:12) but also a metaphor for the woman’s body (8:11); also, the “beloved” is compared to “henna blossoms from the vineyards of En Gedi” (1:14), and her breasts to the “clusters of grapes on the vine” (7:8).

The metaphors of the vine and the vineyard are also used of God’s people. In Ps. 80:8–13 Israel’s history is presented in terms of the vine-cultivation cycle (cf. Jer. 2:21; Hos. 10:1). A similar story is heard in Isa. 5:1–7, which compares the Israelites’ lack of justice and righteousness to the bearing of wild grapes (cf. “vine of Sodom” in Deut. 32:32; “a corrupt, wild vine” in Jer. 2:21). Ezekiel also uses the vine metaphor in rebuking the Israelites’ iniquity (Ezek. 15:2–4; 17:3–10; 19:10–14). If the aforementioned passages describe Israel’s history from its birth to judgment, Isa. 27:2–6 presents God’s promise of restoration through the story of the restored vineyard.

New Testament. In five parables Jesus refers to vines and cultivation (Matt. 9:17 pars.; 20:1–16; 21:28–32; 21:33–46 pars.; Luke 13:6–9). Notable is the fact that God often is portrayed as the owner of the vineyard (Matt. 20:1; 21:28, 33; Luke 13:6). In Rev. 14:18–20 God’s judgment upon his enemies is described by means of the imagery of the vine harvest, in which the enemies are trampled like harvested grapes in the “great winepress of God’s wrath” (cf. Isa. 63:1–6; Joel 3:13). In the vine metaphor in John 15:1–8, Jesus identifies God as the farmer, himself as the “true vine,” and the believers as its branches. No longer are God’s people identified as the vine, which is expected to bear good fruits; rather, Jesus is the vine, and the believers are his branches. So the fruitfulness of the branches depends on their adherence to the vine. Jesus’ use of the “fruit of the vine” at the Last Supper as the symbol of his atoning blood can be compared to his metaphorical self-identification as the vine (Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18). See also Plants.