(1) A priestly gatekeeper at the time of the early postexilic period (Ezra 2:42; Neh. 7:45). He and his associates were stationed east at the King’s Gate (1 Chron. 9:17). (2) One of the temple servants who returned with Zerubbabel (Ezra 2:45). (3) A priestly gatekeeper at the time of Ezra and Nehemiah (Neh. 11:19; 12:25). (4) A Levitical teacher of the law (Neh. 8:7) at the time of Ezra (conceivably identified with the Akkub of Ezra 2:45). (5) A descendant of David through Jehoiakim and Zerubbabel in the period after the exile (1 Chron. 3:24).

One of thirteen assistants who stood by Ezra during the reading of the law to the assembly of Israelites in Jerusalem (Neh. 8:4). Anaiah is also listed among the “leaders of the people” (Neh. 10:22) who sealed the covenant with God following the hearing of the law.

(1) An official in Solomon’s administration, the high priest (1 Kings 4:2). (2) A second official, son of Nathan, in Solomon’s administration, in charge of district officers (1 Kings 4:5). (3) The king of Judah around 769–733 BC (also known as Uzziah). He likely ruled as coregent with his father starting in 792 BC before he was sole ruler. The account of his rule is recorded in 2 Kings 14:21–22; 15:1–7; 2 Chron. 26:1–23. (See also Uzziah.) (4) A descendant of Judah through Ethan (1 Chron. 2:8). (5) Another descendant of Judah through Obed, whose son is also called “Azariah” (1 Chron. 2:38–39). (6) A descendant of Levi through his father, Ahimaaz, and the father of Johanan (1 Chron. 6:9). (7) A descendant of Levi through his father, Johanan. This Azariah is said to have served in Solomon’s temple and was the father of Amariah (1 Chron. 6:10–11).

(8) A descendant of Levi through his father, Hilkiah, and the father of Seraiah (1 Chron. 6:13–14). Ezra the scribe was the son of Seraiah and a descendant of this Azariah (Ezra 7:1). (9) A temple musician, a Kohathite (1 Chron. 6:36). (10) A priest, son of Hilkiah (1 Chron. 9:11), likely the same as the Azariah in 1 Chron. 6:13–14. (11) A prophet during the reign of King Asa (910–869 BC) who encouraged the king to purify the worship of Judah (2 Chron. 15:1–8). (12) Two of King Jehoshaphat’s (870–848 BC) seven sons. They were all given many gifts, but the eldest brother, Jehoram, became king of Judah (2 Chron. 21:2). The NIV differentiates by calling one son “Azariahu.” (13) Son of Jehoram, and a military commander who entered into an alliance with the priest Jehoiada against Athaliah (2 Chron. 23:1) in order to install Joash as king (836–798 BC).

(14) Son of Obed, and a military commander who entered into an alliance with Jehoiada against Athaliah (2 Chron. 23:1). (15) A priest who took the lead in confronting King Uzziah when he burned incense to the Lord in the sacred precincts of the temple (2 Chron. 26:17, 20). (16) Son of Jehohanan, and an Ephraimite leader who confronted the army of Samaria under Pekah (752–732 BC) and demanded that they return Judean prisoners to their homes (2 Chron. 28:12). (17) Son of Jehallelel, and a Gershonite priest from the tribe of Levi who supported Hezekiah’s (727–698 BC) religious reforms (2 Chron. 29:12). (18) The father of Joel, a Levite who supported Hezekiah’s religious reforms (2 Chron. 29:12). (19) The chief priest during the reign of Hezekiah (2 Chron. 31:10–13). (20) Son of Meraioth, a descendant of Aaron, and an ancestor of Ezra (Ezra 7:3). (21) Son of Maaseiah, and a builder of the wall of Jerusalem under Nehemiah (Neh. 3:23).

(22) A man who returned to Jerusalem from Babylonian captivity with Zerubbabel (Neh. 7:7). (23) A priest who aided Ezra in teaching the people the law (Neh. 8:7). (24) One of those who sealed the covenant that was proclaimed when the wall of Jerusalem was rebuilt (Neh. 10:2). (25) A leader of Judah who participated in the ceremony that dedicated the wall of Jerusalem at the time of Nehemiah (Neh. 12:33). (26) The son of Hoshaiah who, along with Johanan son of Kareah and others, rejected the word of God through Jeremiah to stay in Judah rather than flee to Egypt (Jer. 43:2). (27) One of the three friends of Daniel who experienced captivity in Babylon beginning in 605 BC; he was renamed “Abednego” (Dan. 1:7). He refused to worship Nebuchadnezzar’s golden statue and was thrown into the fiery furnace, from which God saved him (Dan. 1:6, 11, 19; 2:17).

(1) An ancestor of Ethan, one of the musicians appointed by David (1 Chron. 6:46). (2) An ancestor of Uthai, a Judahite who resettled in Jerusalem after the exile (1 Chron. 9:4). (3) An ancestor of men who returned to the land with Zerubbabel and Joshua after the exile (Ezra 2:10). Another group of returnees from the family of Bani came with Ezra (8:10). These families are possibly referred to again in the list of men who had taken foreign wives in the time of Ezra (10:29, 34). (4) The father of Rehum, who supervised repairs in Jerusalem in the time of Nehemiah (Neh. 3:17). (5) Two Levites who attended Ezra during the reading of the law (Neh. 8:7), led worship (9:4–5), and signed the covenant along with Nehemiah (10:13). Both are mentioned in Neh. 9:4. It is not clear how the various mentions of Bani in this section of Nehemiah should be distinguished. (6) A leader of the people who signed the covenant along with Nehemiah (Neh. 10:14). (7) The father of Uzzi, a Levite descended from Asaph (Neh. 11:22). See also Binnui.

The evidence is clear that the books of Ezra and Nehemiah originally formed a single book. It is not until the Middle Ages that manuscripts show a division between the two. Furthermore, the material in Neh. 8 (and perhaps also chaps. 9–10) is a continuation of the material that follows the story of Ezra begun in Ezra 7–10. Thus, some of the discussion that follows is also relevant for the book of Nehemiah.

The book of Ezra is named after Ezra, a self-described priest and teacher (7:11) of the Lord. This man was commissioned by the Persian king Artaxerxes I (r. 464–424 BC) to reestablish the law of the Lord in the land of Judah.

Author and Date

The issue of the author and date of Ezra must include the evidence of Nehemiah, since they were originally a single composition. These books are unique among the theological histories of the OT in that they contain large portions that are written in the form of memoirs, first-person accounts of people who participated in the events that are narrated. Ezra, for instance, speaks in the first person in parts of Ezra 7–10. However, the memoir is set within the framework of a form more typical to the histories of the OT: third-person omniscient narration. So, although traditionally the authorship of Ezra is associated with Ezra, there is no claim that the book as a whole was written by him; thus, this book, like so many of the histories of Israel, is anonymous.

As for the date of composition, we need to differentiate the memoirs, which come from the time of Ezra (his ministry begins in 458 BC) and the time of Nehemiah (his work begins in 445 BC), and the time of the third-person narrative that incorporates these memoirs. The latter contains no date, but none of the events narrated took place after around 400 BC, and perhaps the final composition of the book took place around this time and no later than 300 BC.

Genre and Structure

The book of Ezra is a theological history, a book that intends to communicate what actually happened in space and time but is selective, with the purpose of showing how God was working among the people of God in the postexilic period. As a theological history in the OT, however, Ezra and Nehemiah are unique in that they contain the memoirs of Ezra and Nehemiah (as detailed by the first outline below). The structure of the book of Ezra makes sense only when paired with Nehemiah, since, again, they were an original unity. The structure may be explained on the basis of its sources as follows:

I. A Historical Review (Ezra 1–6)

II. Ezra’s Memoirs, Part 1 (Ezra 7–10)

III. Nehemiah’s Memoirs, Part 1 (Neh. 1–7)

IV. Ezra’s Memoirs, Part 2 (Neh. 8–10)

V. Nehemiah’s Memoirs, Part 2 (Neh. 11–13)

Or on the basis of the contents as follows:

I. Zerubbabel and Sheshbazzar Lead the People in Rebuilding the Temple (Ezra 1–6)

II. Ezra Leads the People by Reestablishing the Law (Ezra 7–10)

III. Nehemiah Leads the People in Rebuilding the Wall of Jerusalem (Neh. 1:1–7:3)

IV. Renewal, Celebration, Remaining Problems (Neh. 7:4–13:31)

Theological Message

The book of Ezra begins where Chronicles ends, with the decree by King Cyrus of Persia that the Jews be allowed to return to the land. The first six chapters narrate the events of the first phase of that return, from 539 until 515 BC. Zerubbabel and Sheshbazzar are the leaders of the people at this time, and their initial goal is to rebuild the temple. Once they start, however, opposition sets in, and the work stops. However, motivated in large part, as we know, by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, the people finish the work, and the second temple becomes functional.

Nonetheless, over fifty years later, when the story of Ezra begins (Ezra 7–10), the condition of the people of God is not promising. King Artaxerxes of Persia allows Ezra, a priest and teacher, to lead a return back to Judah with the express purpose of reestablishing the law in the land. When he arrives, he finds that there are sinful practices such as illegitimate intermarriage between Jews and Gentiles, and he works to reestablish the purity of the people. The story of Ezra continues in the book of Nehemiah, where he is seen leading the people in a great renewal of the covenant as they reaffirm their commitment to obey God’s law (Neh. 8–10).

Contemporary Significance

The book of Ezra narrates two periods of return to the promised land from exile with two different primary purposes. The first group, led by Zerubbabel and Sheshbazzar, has as its main purpose the rebuilding of the temple. The primacy of the temple building is an indication of the importance of worship. The second group returns under the leadership of Ezra, whose purpose is to reestablish the observance of the law among God’s people. God’s word plays a central role in Ezra’s reform, and reading about his ancient ministry reminds God’s people today of the importance of Scripture.

Ezra’s style of leadership also provides a model for contemporary leadership. Ezra is sensitive and empathetic. He takes the shortcomings and failures of God’s people on himself. When the people sin, he tears out his own hair and sheds tears of disappointment. That this is not the only possible style of leadership is seen in the next book as we observe Nehemiah at work.

The work of Zerubbabel and Ezra (as well as Nehemiah) also illustrates that at times separation from pagan influences is necessary. Granted, Jesus breaks down the barrier between Jews and Gentiles (Gal. 3:28), but his followers should be distinguished by their new life in him (Gal. 4:8–11; 5:16–26).

Nehemiah son of Hakaliah is one of the most colorful figures in OT history. He is passionate and aggressive; he works hard to achieve the goals that God has set for him. He does not tolerate the sins of others and fights his way through the obstacles that people set in his path. In many ways, he is a study in contrasts with Ezra, his near contemporary. When Ezra discovers sin among his fellow Judeans, he pulls his hair out. When Nehemiah encounters the same problem, he pulls out the hair of the sinners.

The books of Ezra and Nehemiah were originally a single composition, not broken into two parts until the Middle Ages. Thus, many issues, such as date and authorship, are discussed in the introduction to the article on the book of Ezra. Here, the conclusions will be stated for ease of reference, but the evidence is presented in the article on Ezra. The additional details to follow are particularly relevant to the study of Nehemiah.

Literary Considerations

Author and date. Ezra-Nehemiah is an anonymous composition that reached its present form sometime between 400 and 300 BC.

Genre and structure. Ezra-Nehemiah is a theological history, a book that intends to communicate what actually happened in space and time but is selective, with the purpose of showing how God was working among his people in the postexilic period. As a theological history in the OT, however, Ezra (and Nehemiah) are unique in that they contain the memoirs of Ezra and Nehemiah as detailed by the first outline below. The structure of the book of Ezra makes sense only when paired with the book of Nehemiah, again since they were originally a unit. The structure may be explained on the basis of its sources, as follows:

I. A Historical Review (Ezra 1–6)

II. Ezra’s Memoirs, Part 1 (Ezra 7–10)

III. Nehemiah’s Memoirs, Part 1 (Neh. 1–7)

IV. Ezra’s Memoirs, Part 2 (Neh. 8–10)

V. Nehemiah’s Memoirs, Part 2 (Neh. 11–13)

Or it may be explained on the basis of its content:

I. Zerubbabel and Sheshbazzar Lead the People in Rebuilding the Temple (Ezra 1–6)

II. Ezra Leads the People by Reestablishing the Law (Ezra 7–10)

III. Nehemiah Leads the People in Rebuilding the Wall of Jerusalem (Neh. 1:1–7:3)

IV. Renewal, Celebration, Remaining Problems (Neh. 7:4–13:31)

Theological Message

The book begins with Nehemiah serving as the cupbearer of King Artaxerxes of Persia. Nehemiah hears a distressing report from his ancestral homeland in Judah and feels called to return to Jerusalem. Receiving permission from Artaxerxes to go back to Judah, he arrives intent on building the walls of the city, thus completing the physical reconstruction of the city. In spite of the efforts of neighboring groups and provinces to block their efforts, the Jews under Nehemiah’s leadership are remarkably successful at accomplishing their task. In this, the postexilic people of God surely must have recognized that the prophecies of salvation in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel were coming to fulfillment.

The book of Nehemiah also records Ezra’s leadership in guiding the people to reaffirm their commitment to Yahweh and his law. They confess their sin. One might think of the physical wall that Nehemiah built not only as protection but also as a means of physical separation from the Gentiles. Also, then, Ezra’s reestablishment of the law of God would serve as a spiritual separation from the lawless Gentiles.

Even with all the success, the book of Nehemiah ends in chapter 13 on a note of disappointment. Nehemiah recounts the strenuous efforts that the faithful under his leadership have made to get right with God, but many people persisted in their sin.

Contemporary Significance

Ezra narrates two returns: first under Zerubbabel and Sheshbazzar to rebuild the temple, and second under Ezra to reestablish the law. In the first part, the book of Nehemiah focuses on a third return under Nehemiah to build the walls and thus complete the physical reconstruction of the city. Nehemiah’s leadership provides an alternative model of leadership to that of Ezra. Nehemiah is more assertive and demanding. It is not that one mode of leadership is right or wrong; the contemporary Christian leader looking to Ezra and Nehemiah for a model of leadership should read the situation to know what will best accomplish God’s purposes. Also, the purpose of building the walls was a matter of military defense, but it was also a matter of separation. True, Christ breaks down the wall of separation between Jews and Gentiles (Eph. 2:14–18), but the NT also recognizes that Christians (whether from a Jewish or a Gentile background) must lead holy and distinct lives.

Surprisingly, the book of Nehemiah does not end with a sense of completion, a feeling of mission accomplished. The last chapter finds Nehemiah in prayer for the continuing sin of the people, reminding contemporary readers that repentance is not a onetime act, but a lifestyle.

To ingest a liquid. Drinking and eating, being closely related, commonly occur in the same context. Their primary purpose is to sustain life. The most common drinks are water, wine (or unfermented grape juice), milk, vinegar, and beer, but water is most important for sustaining life (e.g., Gen. 21:19; Exod. 15:22–23; 17:1–3; Num. 20:5). Fellowship is promoted among those who eat and drink together (e.g., Judg. 19:4–7; Job 1:18; Gal. 2:11–12). Food and drink often symbolize the enjoyment of life (1 Kings 18:41; Neh. 8:12; Eccles. 2:24; 8:15). Drinking wine commemorates the blood of the Passover and Jesus’ crucifixion, but its abuse is condemned (e.g., Eph. 5:18). On occasion, drinking accompanies the making of a covenant: old (Exod. 24:11) and new (Luke 22:20). Drinking is also used metaphorically to represent partaking of something, such as sexual activity (Prov. 5:15; 9:5) or violence (Isa. 34:5; Rev. 16:6).

A priest and scribe of pivotal importance in the late postexilic period (Ezra 7:1–10:44; Neh. 8:1–18; 12:36).

The Babylonian exile ended in 539 BC, and due to a decree by Cyrus, many exiles returned to Jerusalem under the leadership of Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel. The temple was rebuilt at that time (515 BC), though now, many decades later, Jerusalem was still largely ruined, and the people were in a state of spiritual depression.

The Persian king of the time, Artaxerxes I, gave Ezra permission to return to Jerusalem in order to restore the law of Moses as the law of the land. Ezra left in that king’s seventh year (458 BC). Artaxerxes was guided by a Persian state policy dictating that the empire’s vassals would be best ordered if allowed to restore their own native laws. God used this self-serving impulse for his own purposes.

Ezra brought a number of Levites along with him for the task of instructing the people in the law of God. As part of Ezra’s work, he also confronted sin in the community, the most notable of which was marriage between Jewish men and pagan wives. Such sins led to Israel and Judah’s problems in the first place, as foreign women led their husbands to adopt pagan religious practices. One need only think of Jezebel and Ahab and the Egyptian princess and Solomon. When he confronted these sinners, Ezra wept and tore his clothes, demonstrating his zeal that the people obey God.

The account of Ezra’s ministry is told in conjunction with that of Nehemiah, who arrived in 445 BC, commissioned to rebuild the wall, yet rarely is their work described together. They were together on the day that the people reaffirmed their intention to obey God’s law (Neh. 8:1, 9–10).

Ezra plays a significant role in the Jewish literature of the intertestamental period. He is remembered as the one who closes the OT canon, bringing all the books to completion and in a collection.

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).

(1) A Benjamite, one of eleven sons of Shashak (1 Chron. 8:23). (2) A Benjamite, one of six sons of Azel, and a descendant of Saul (1 Chron. 8:38; 9:44). (3) The son of Maakah, he was one of David’s mighty men (1 Chron. 11:43). (4) The head of a family of temple servants who returned to Jerusalem after exile (Ezra 2:46; Neh. 7:49). (5) A Levite who interpreted the law during Ezra’s reforms (Neh. 8:7) and who also sealed Nehemiah’s covenant (Neh. 10:10). (6, 7) Two signers of Nehemiah’s covenant (Neh. 10:22, 26). (8) The son of Zakkur, he was trustworthy and so was appointed as an assistant to Pedaiah, whom Nehemiah put in charge of the storehouses (Neh. 13:13). (9) Jeremiah 35:4 includes the phrase “the room of the sons of Hanan son of Igdaliah.” This Hanan may have been the leader of a guild of prophets or priests living within the temple.

A man who was part of the group that stood on the platform with Ezra (on his left side) when he read the Torah to the people after returning from the Babylonian captivity. It is likely, though not certain, that he was a Levite (Neh. 8:4).

The head of a clan that was part of the early return to Judah from Babylonian captivity in 539 BC or soon after (Ezra 2:19; Neh. 7:22). Seven members of this clan were later found guilty of intermarriage (Ezra 10:33). Hashum is also listed as one who stood by Ezra during the reading of the law (Neh. 8:4) and who sealed the covenant (10:18).

(1) The father of Eliakim the official of Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:18–37; Isa. 22:20; 36:3). (2) The son of Shallum (1 Chron. 6:13; Ezra 7:1–2), he was the high priest during Josiah’s reign who found the law book (2 Kings 22:4–23:24; 2 Chron. 34:9–22). (3) A Levite, the son of Amzi (1 Chron. 6:45–46). (4) A gatekeeper, a son of Hosah (1 Chron. 26:11). (5) One of twelve men standing with Ezra as he read the law (Neh. 8:4). (6) A leader of the priests who returned from exile with Zerubbabel (Neh. 12:7). (7) A priest of Anathoth and the father of Jeremiah the prophet (Jer. 1:1). (8) The father of Gemariah, who delivered Jeremiah’s letter to the Babylonian exiles (Jer. 29:1–3).

(1) One of thirteen Levites who helped the people to understand Ezra’s reading of the law, either by translating into Aramaic or by some other kind of exposition (Neh. 8:7). A man named Hodiah also participated in a ritual of public repentance and worship during Ezra’s reforms (Neh. 9:5). In addition, two of the “brothers” of the Levites whose names were on the covenant document that was sealed following Ezra’s reading of the law are also named “Hodiah” (Neh. 10:10, 13). It is difficult to determine how many distinct figures are present in these texts. (2) A non-Levite signatory of the covenant with God that was made following Ezra’s public reading of the law (Neh. 10:18). (3) A figure listed in a Judahite genealogical list in 1 Chron. 4:19. The listing concerns the descendants of his wife, who was the sister of a man named Naham.

(1) One of thirteen Levites who helped the people to understand Ezra’s reading of the law, either by translating into Aramaic or by some other kind of exposition (Neh. 8:7). A man named Hodiah also participated in a ritual of public repentance and worship during Ezra’s reforms (Neh. 9:5). In addition, two of the “brothers” of the Levites whose names were on the covenant document that was sealed following Ezra’s reading of the law are also named “Hodiah” (Neh. 10:10, 13). It is difficult to determine how many distinct figures are present in these texts. (2) A non-Levite signatory of the covenant with God that was made following Ezra’s public reading of the law (Neh. 10:18). (3) A figure listed in a Judahite genealogical list in 1 Chron. 4:19. The listing concerns the descendants of his wife, who was the sister of a man named Naham.

Hermeneutics is the science and practice of interpretation. It can refer more generally to the philosophy of human understanding, or more specifically to the tools and methods used for interpreting communicative acts.

Human communication takes place in a variety of ways: through the use of nonverbal signs, through speech, and through writing. Effective communication requires some degree of shared belief, knowledge, and background between the participants. If the communicators have a significant amount of common ground, they will be able to successfully understand one another with little extra effort. Conversely, individuals with vastly different backgrounds will need to take extra steps to communicate effectively, such as defining special terms, avoiding jargon and colloquialisms, appreciating details about the other’s cultural assumptions, or learning a foreign language.

The Bible is not exempt from this process of communication. The Scriptures are meant to be read, understood, and put into practice (Luke 8:4–15; James 1:18), a task that requires effort and study on the part of its readers (Acts 17:11; 2 Tim. 2:15). Everyone who reads the Bible is involved in this interpretative process, though readers will vary in their hermeneutical self-consciousness and skill. Thus, although readers are able to understand and appropriate much of the Bible without any special training in hermeneutical principles, such training is appropriate and helpful, both in attaining self-consciousness in interpretation and in acquiring new skills and insights in the effort to become a better reader.

The Development of Hermeneutics

The church has benefited from a long history of thinking about the nature and purpose of interpreting its Scriptures, and that reflection has resulted in a wide variety of hermeneutical theories and practices. How does one determine the meaning of a text? Is meaning the truth embedded within the passage? Or is it the original author’s intention in writing? Or does the text act independently of its author and history, either because it stands on its own terms or because it only “means” anything in interaction with readers? The answers to these questions will determine how readers approach a text, the questions they expect that text to answer, and the tools they use in interpretation.

From the early church to the Enlightenment. The early church emphasized the ability of the biblical text to convey heavenly truth, whether that truth was conceived as doctrinal teaching or absolute ethical rules. While the “literal meaning” of many texts could often supply simple truths and maxims, such a reading was at other times inadequate and could appear incompatible with what were considered basic and fundamental beliefs. Various allegorical techniques were therefore employed to explain such problematic texts. Interpreters often viewed the literal and historical features of the text as a starting point in the search for fuller meaning, as symbolic pointers to moral principles, absolute truths, or eternal realities. These practices were systematized throughout the Middle Ages and resulted in an extensive development of tradition. Church tradition, in turn, provided a degree of protection from the potential for arbitrariness in allegorical techniques, insisting that interpretation must be guided by the “rule of faith,” the traditional teaching and faith of the church.

Beginning in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, scholarship moved to distance itself from such tradition. The Protestant Reformers, dissatisfied with the rule of church tradition, sought to displace its authority with the direct rule of Scripture. They therefore returned to the original biblical text, engaging in critical study of the text itself and translating the Bible into the vernacular to make it more widely accessible. In the centuries that followed, Enlightenment scholars went a step further in their rejection of the church as the sole repository of knowledge. Instead, they asserted, knowledge was acquired through scientific inquiry and critical study. Such inquiry could be applied to any field: the forces of nature, human anatomy, or the interpretation of texts. The meaning of a text was not some abstract truth or heavenly principle; rather, meaning was determined by the human author’s original intention in writing and was therefore a historical matter. The intention of an author could be better exposed and understood through a more complete study of both the language in which a text was written and the historical circumstances that surrounded it. Many of these same emphases had been championed by the Protestant Reformers; yet the Enlightenment thinkers differed on one key point: the Reformers never questioned that the text was the word of God.

From the Enlightenment to the present. This favorable attitude toward historical research dwindled over the centuries. In its place authors emphasized the primacy of the text as text, apart from any connection to its origin and history. Literature, it is argued, ultimately operates independently from its author’s intention. All that matters is the text, and it is the reader’s job to understand the text on its own terms, apart from the contingencies surrounding its creation. To that end, interpreters should pay careful attention to the text’s literary features, including its plot structure, characterization, themes, and use of imagery. An interesting example of this hermeneutical dynamic is found in John 19:22, where Pilate asserts, “What I have written, I have written.” Pilate’s words quickly take on significance far beyond their author’s intention, primarily because they are juxtaposed with other themes in John, such as testimony and the kingship of Christ.

More recent approaches have emphasized the role of the reader in the construction of meaning. Interpretation, it is argued, is determined by the interaction between reader and text; readers bring their own presuppositions to the task of interpretation, and such assumptions determine meaning. The author and the historical context of the text will exert some influence, but the primary determinant of meaning is the present reader in his or her present environment. This is not to say that the text “means” whatever a reader wants it to mean; rather, it makes meaning contingent upon the contemporary environment and not subject to anything external to individual readers. On the one hand, readers must“actualize” the text by applying and appropriating it within an environment alien to the original. On the other, readers have the right, and in some cases the responsibility, of undermining the text, particularly if that text assists in the oppression of others.

Elements of an Effective Hermeneutic

An effective hermeneutic requires keeping each of these elements in constant balance with one another. God’s word is truthful and fully trustworthy, yet it is given to his people through individual human authors, authors who wrote in a particular context to a particular audience at a particular time. Understanding the Bible therefore requires knowledge of the purposes of these authors in their specific historical contexts. Nevertheless, our primary access to authorial intention is through the biblical text itself. Finally, understanding always requires personal interaction with, and application of, the text of Scripture to each person’s own life and circumstances. Thus, hermeneutics involves the simultaneous interaction of a variety of perspectives—truth, author, text, and reader—each of which cannot function properly without the others. What follows here is an outline of the most important hermeneutical tools required for such a weighty endeavor.

Linguistics

An appreciation of the nature, structure, and function of language is fundamental to any interpretative endeavor. Obviously, this applies first of all to the specific languages in which the books of the Bible were originally composed. Each language has its own unique vocabulary, grammar, and syntax, and structures available to a writer in one language often are absent in another. Thus, while it is often necessary and acceptable to rely on translations (Neh. 7:73–8:12), readers should be aware that translation itself involves a degree of unavoidable interpretation.

A more general analysis of language is also useful. Understanding the typical patterns by which authors will string sentences together is necessary for following a writing’s train of thought. This tool, called “discourse analysis,” operates above the sentence level, attempting to understand and explain how sentences function in conjunction with one another in order to produce meaningful paragraphs, and how those paragraphs in turn operate within the overarching purpose of the discourse. These patterns of discourse can vary on the basis of book, author, language, culture, and literary genre, but there are also features of effective discourse common to all communication. Thus, while the principles and rules of communication are often intuitively grasped, understanding language, both generally and specifically, is foundational to the task of interpretation.

Literature and Literary Theory

The biblical writers are concerned not only with the informational content of their writing, but also with the manner in which that content is communicated. The words, patterns of speech, style, and imagery of any text provide significant insight into its purpose and message, apart from that text’s specific propositional content. The diversity of language used in the Gospels provides an example of this. Each of the four Gospel authors has a slightly different concern in his writing. John’s purpose, “that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31), explains his frequent use of courtroom language, such as “testimony” and “witness” (e.g., John 21:24). Mark, by contrast, sweeps the reader along a fast-paced and intensely personal exposition of Jesus’ life and death through the terseness and immediacy of his narration. Attention to these literary details allows the reader to more fully participate in the world of the text.

Such decisions will often depend upon a thorough analysis of genre. A reader naturally interprets historical narrative differently from poetry and didactic material. Furthermore, the conventions of different genres change over time. The book of Acts, for example, despite its essentially historical character, does not appear concerned with recording an exact dictation of the many speeches it reports, despite modern expectations that historical writing should be as precise as possible. The classification of ancient genres and the description of their respective conventions therefore require a good deal of analysis and sensitivity, but often such insights are provided by a careful and open reading of the text.

History

As the product of a particular author at a particular time, each book of the Bible is situated within its own unique historical context. Paul, for example, while perhaps conscious of the importance of his letters for posterity, wrote to specific churches or individuals with a singular purpose. This particularity of author, audience, and circumstance can often cause interpretative problems. Thus, while background studies are not always necessary to get the general idea of the author’s message, they can be invaluable in protecting readers from anachronism and enabling them to better appreciate the author’s purpose and perspective.

Historical study is assisted by specialized disciplines. Archaeology, for example, focuses on the beliefs, habits, practices, and history of ancient cultures, harnessing a wealth of evidence to that end. Similarly, anthropology and other social sciences are able to explore facets of modern cultures in order to better assess cross-cultural presuppositions and behaviors, many of which provide insight into ancient civilizations that shared similar attitudes. These methods provide the reader with the information necessary to understand a text in terms consistent with its cultural backdrop, highlighting both the similarities and the differences between the Bible and its environment. Recent discoveries of ancient Hittite treaties, for example, shed light on the “cutting ceremony” recorded in Gen. 15. These treaties detail similar ceremonies in which the vassal of a king would walk between hewed animal carcasses as a symbol of allegiance; if disobedience occurred, the vassal would share the fate of the animals. A similar ceremony occurs in Genesis, but with an interesting twist at the end: God, not Abram, passes through the pieces (15:17).

Humility and the Attitude of the Reader

Careful attention in interpretation requires a great deal of humility. It is difficult to overstate the importance of the attitude of the reader for an effective hermeneutic. Being a good reader requires willingness to share and participate in the world of the author and the text, a willingness that postpones judgment and expects personal change. This, in turn, requires a spirit of self-criticism, a commitment to defer one’s own presuppositions in favor of those of the text. Although readers are never able to fully distance themselves from their cultural situation and assumptions, the study of hermeneutics, among other things, can provide tools and skills for self-criticism and self-awareness, skills that enable the reader to better understand, appreciate, and appropriate the meaning of a text. Even a peripheral understanding of the complexities of interpretation can help readers develop an attitude of humility, imagination, and expectation as they approach the Scriptures.

Such humility is a prerequisite for application. The depth of meaning embedded in any text, and especially within the Bible, provides the humble reader with a rich and powerful tool for personal growth. Having better understood the world of the text on its own terms, readers are able to “project” that world onto themselves and their environment, to appropriate its meaning in a new and possibly foreign context. Thus, Jesus promises that those who hear, understand, and put his word into practice will yield a crop “some thirty, some sixty, some a hundred times what was sown” (Mark 4:20).

Unique Features of Biblical Interpretation

Certain unique features of the biblical text can create special opportunities and challenges for the Christian interpreter. These challenges are at work in the Bible’s own interpretation of itself. The Bible was written by many different authors over the course of a long period of history; it is therefore not surprising to find later authors reflecting on earlier periods. This innerbiblical interpretation offers the Christian insights into the unique nature of biblical hermeneutics and therefore provides a foundational model in approaching the Bible as the word of God.

The common and preeminent assumption that grounds innerbiblical interpretation is the commitment to ultimate divine authorship. Thus, the writer of Hebrews, though affirming the diversity of human authorship in the Bible (1:1), regularly introduces OT quotations with statements such as “God says” (1:5), “he spoke through David” (4:7), and “the Holy Spirit says” (3:7). Other writers tend to prefer the formula “it is written,” but each of these reflects a common presupposition that the Scriptures are ultimately delivered by God (2 Pet. 1:21).

Divine authorship means, at the very least, that there is a depth of meaning and purpose to the text, a depth often hidden even from the human author (1 Pet. 1:10–12). Psalm 2, for example, probably originally served as a coronation hymn used to celebrate the appointment of a new king in Israel. Yet the NT understands this psalm as a prophecy fulfilled in the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Acts 13:33; Heb. 5:5). The intention of the original speaker can even be at odds with God’s intention, such as when Caiaphas claims, “It is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish” (John 11:50; cf. Acts 5:35–39). In this case, the irony of Caiaphas’s statement creates a powerful testimony, contrary to his intent, and is used by John to promote confidence in Jesus.

Furthermore, because the Scriptures are from God, they have a consistent and central focus. The NT unhesitatingly views all of Scripture, in all its diversity, as focused, by virtue of divine inspiration, on the person and work of Jesus Christ. This is seen in, for example, Luke 24:13–35, where the resurrected Jesus, “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” explains to his disciples “what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself” (cf. John 5:39; 12:41). This central focus on Christ requires the Christian interpreter to understand any individual verse in light of its context within the canon, to operate with the same assumption as the NT apostles, that all the Scriptures are concerned with testifying to Jesus the Christ.

Additionally, Paul views both Testaments as the special possession and once-for-all foundation of God’s church (Eph. 2:19–20; cf. Acts 2:42). The church, from a NT perspective, is the primary audience of the entirety of Scripture (1 Pet. 1:12) and is therefore uniquely entrusted with understanding and proclaiming its message (Matt. 28:18–20). While the Scriptures themselves are the only infallible guide for interpretation, believers should not forsake the teaching and tradition of the church (2 Thess. 2:15).

Finally, full understanding of the Bible requires the work of the Holy Spirit in conjunction with the faith of the reader. Belief and understanding go together (John 10:38), and both are the result of the unique work of the Holy Spirit (16:13). The proof that such understanding has taken place is the godly life of the believer (Rom. 2:13; James 1:22–25). The reverse is also true: disobedience works against understanding the riches of God’s Word (James 1:21). Such considerations underline the importance of the hermeneutical task. The tools and principles of hermeneutics are valuable only insofar as they enable the reader to better understand and appropriate the biblical message, to hear the word of God and respond appropriately.

Hermeneutics is the science and practice of interpretation. It can refer more generally to the philosophy of human understanding, or more specifically to the tools and methods used for interpreting communicative acts.

Human communication takes place in a variety of ways: through the use of nonverbal signs, through speech, and through writing. Effective communication requires some degree of shared belief, knowledge, and background between the participants. If the communicators have a significant amount of common ground, they will be able to successfully understand one another with little extra effort. Conversely, individuals with vastly different backgrounds will need to take extra steps to communicate effectively, such as defining special terms, avoiding jargon and colloquialisms, appreciating details about the other’s cultural assumptions, or learning a foreign language.

The Bible is not exempt from this process of communication. The Scriptures are meant to be read, understood, and put into practice (Luke 8:4–15; James 1:18), a task that requires effort and study on the part of its readers (Acts 17:11; 2 Tim. 2:15). Everyone who reads the Bible is involved in this interpretative process, though readers will vary in their hermeneutical self-consciousness and skill. Thus, although readers are able to understand and appropriate much of the Bible without any special training in hermeneutical principles, such training is appropriate and helpful, both in attaining self-consciousness in interpretation and in acquiring new skills and insights in the effort to become a better reader.

The Development of Hermeneutics

The church has benefited from a long history of thinking about the nature and purpose of interpreting its Scriptures, and that reflection has resulted in a wide variety of hermeneutical theories and practices. How does one determine the meaning of a text? Is meaning the truth embedded within the passage? Or is it the original author’s intention in writing? Or does the text act independently of its author and history, either because it stands on its own terms or because it only “means” anything in interaction with readers? The answers to these questions will determine how readers approach a text, the questions they expect that text to answer, and the tools they use in interpretation.

From the early church to the Enlightenment. The early church emphasized the ability of the biblical text to convey heavenly truth, whether that truth was conceived as doctrinal teaching or absolute ethical rules. While the “literal meaning” of many texts could often supply simple truths and maxims, such a reading was at other times inadequate and could appear incompatible with what were considered basic and fundamental beliefs. Various allegorical techniques were therefore employed to explain such problematic texts. Interpreters often viewed the literal and historical features of the text as a starting point in the search for fuller meaning, as symbolic pointers to moral principles, absolute truths, or eternal realities. These practices were systematized throughout the Middle Ages and resulted in an extensive development of tradition. Church tradition, in turn, provided a degree of protection from the potential for arbitrariness in allegorical techniques, insisting that interpretation must be guided by the “rule of faith,” the traditional teaching and faith of the church.

Beginning in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, scholarship moved to distance itself from such tradition. The Protestant Reformers, dissatisfied with the rule of church tradition, sought to displace its authority with the direct rule of Scripture. They therefore returned to the original biblical text, engaging in critical study of the text itself and translating the Bible into the vernacular to make it more widely accessible. In the centuries that followed, Enlightenment scholars went a step further in their rejection of the church as the sole repository of knowledge. Instead, they asserted, knowledge was acquired through scientific inquiry and critical study. Such inquiry could be applied to any field: the forces of nature, human anatomy, or the interpretation of texts. The meaning of a text was not some abstract truth or heavenly principle; rather, meaning was determined by the human author’s original intention in writing and was therefore a historical matter. The intention of an author could be better exposed and understood through a more complete study of both the language in which a text was written and the historical circumstances that surrounded it. Many of these same emphases had been championed by the Protestant Reformers; yet the Enlightenment thinkers differed on one key point: the Reformers never questioned that the text was the word of God.

From the Enlightenment to the present. This favorable attitude toward historical research dwindled over the centuries. In its place authors emphasized the primacy of the text as text, apart from any connection to its origin and history. Literature, it is argued, ultimately operates independently from its author’s intention. All that matters is the text, and it is the reader’s job to understand the text on its own terms, apart from the contingencies surrounding its creation. To that end, interpreters should pay careful attention to the text’s literary features, including its plot structure, characterization, themes, and use of imagery. An interesting example of this hermeneutical dynamic is found in John 19:22, where Pilate asserts, “What I have written, I have written.” Pilate’s words quickly take on significance far beyond their author’s intention, primarily because they are juxtaposed with other themes in John, such as testimony and the kingship of Christ.

More recent approaches have emphasized the role of the reader in the construction of meaning. Interpretation, it is argued, is determined by the interaction between reader and text; readers bring their own presuppositions to the task of interpretation, and such assumptions determine meaning. The author and the historical context of the text will exert some influence, but the primary determinant of meaning is the present reader in his or her present environment. This is not to say that the text “means” whatever a reader wants it to mean; rather, it makes meaning contingent upon the contemporary environment and not subject to anything external to individual readers. On the one hand, readers must“actualize” the text by applying and appropriating it within an environment alien to the original. On the other, readers have the right, and in some cases the responsibility, of undermining the text, particularly if that text assists in the oppression of others.

Elements of an Effective Hermeneutic

An effective hermeneutic requires keeping each of these elements in constant balance with one another. God’s word is truthful and fully trustworthy, yet it is given to his people through individual human authors, authors who wrote in a particular context to a particular audience at a particular time. Understanding the Bible therefore requires knowledge of the purposes of these authors in their specific historical contexts. Nevertheless, our primary access to authorial intention is through the biblical text itself. Finally, understanding always requires personal interaction with, and application of, the text of Scripture to each person’s own life and circumstances. Thus, hermeneutics involves the simultaneous interaction of a variety of perspectives—truth, author, text, and reader—each of which cannot function properly without the others. What follows here is an outline of the most important hermeneutical tools required for such a weighty endeavor.

Linguistics

An appreciation of the nature, structure, and function of language is fundamental to any interpretative endeavor. Obviously, this applies first of all to the specific languages in which the books of the Bible were originally composed. Each language has its own unique vocabulary, grammar, and syntax, and structures available to a writer in one language often are absent in another. Thus, while it is often necessary and acceptable to rely on translations (Neh. 7:73–8:12), readers should be aware that translation itself involves a degree of unavoidable interpretation.

A more general analysis of language is also useful. Understanding the typical patterns by which authors will string sentences together is necessary for following a writing’s train of thought. This tool, called “discourse analysis,” operates above the sentence level, attempting to understand and explain how sentences function in conjunction with one another in order to produce meaningful paragraphs, and how those paragraphs in turn operate within the overarching purpose of the discourse. These patterns of discourse can vary on the basis of book, author, language, culture, and literary genre, but there are also features of effective discourse common to all communication. Thus, while the principles and rules of communication are often intuitively grasped, understanding language, both generally and specifically, is foundational to the task of interpretation.

Literature and Literary Theory

The biblical writers are concerned not only with the informational content of their writing, but also with the manner in which that content is communicated. The words, patterns of speech, style, and imagery of any text provide significant insight into its purpose and message, apart from that text’s specific propositional content. The diversity of language used in the Gospels provides an example of this. Each of the four Gospel authors has a slightly different concern in his writing. John’s purpose, “that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31), explains his frequent use of courtroom language, such as “testimony” and “witness” (e.g., John 21:24). Mark, by contrast, sweeps the reader along a fast-paced and intensely personal exposition of Jesus’ life and death through the terseness and immediacy of his narration. Attention to these literary details allows the reader to more fully participate in the world of the text.

Such decisions will often depend upon a thorough analysis of genre. A reader naturally interprets historical narrative differently from poetry and didactic material. Furthermore, the conventions of different genres change over time. The book of Acts, for example, despite its essentially historical character, does not appear concerned with recording an exact dictation of the many speeches it reports, despite modern expectations that historical writing should be as precise as possible. The classification of ancient genres and the description of their respective conventions therefore require a good deal of analysis and sensitivity, but often such insights are provided by a careful and open reading of the text.

History

As the product of a particular author at a particular time, each book of the Bible is situated within its own unique historical context. Paul, for example, while perhaps conscious of the importance of his letters for posterity, wrote to specific churches or individuals with a singular purpose. This particularity of author, audience, and circumstance can often cause interpretative problems. Thus, while background studies are not always necessary to get the general idea of the author’s message, they can be invaluable in protecting readers from anachronism and enabling them to better appreciate the author’s purpose and perspective.

Historical study is assisted by specialized disciplines. Archaeology, for example, focuses on the beliefs, habits, practices, and history of ancient cultures, harnessing a wealth of evidence to that end. Similarly, anthropology and other social sciences are able to explore facets of modern cultures in order to better assess cross-cultural presuppositions and behaviors, many of which provide insight into ancient civilizations that shared similar attitudes. These methods provide the reader with the information necessary to understand a text in terms consistent with its cultural backdrop, highlighting both the similarities and the differences between the Bible and its environment. Recent discoveries of ancient Hittite treaties, for example, shed light on the “cutting ceremony” recorded in Gen. 15. These treaties detail similar ceremonies in which the vassal of a king would walk between hewed animal carcasses as a symbol of allegiance; if disobedience occurred, the vassal would share the fate of the animals. A similar ceremony occurs in Genesis, but with an interesting twist at the end: God, not Abram, passes through the pieces (15:17).

Humility and the Attitude of the Reader

Careful attention in interpretation requires a great deal of humility. It is difficult to overstate the importance of the attitude of the reader for an effective hermeneutic. Being a good reader requires willingness to share and participate in the world of the author and the text, a willingness that postpones judgment and expects personal change. This, in turn, requires a spirit of self-criticism, a commitment to defer one’s own presuppositions in favor of those of the text. Although readers are never able to fully distance themselves from their cultural situation and assumptions, the study of hermeneutics, among other things, can provide tools and skills for self-criticism and self-awareness, skills that enable the reader to better understand, appreciate, and appropriate the meaning of a text. Even a peripheral understanding of the complexities of interpretation can help readers develop an attitude of humility, imagination, and expectation as they approach the Scriptures.

Such humility is a prerequisite for application. The depth of meaning embedded in any text, and especially within the Bible, provides the humble reader with a rich and powerful tool for personal growth. Having better understood the world of the text on its own terms, readers are able to “project” that world onto themselves and their environment, to appropriate its meaning in a new and possibly foreign context. Thus, Jesus promises that those who hear, understand, and put his word into practice will yield a crop “some thirty, some sixty, some a hundred times what was sown” (Mark 4:20).

Unique Features of Biblical Interpretation

Certain unique features of the biblical text can create special opportunities and challenges for the Christian interpreter. These challenges are at work in the Bible’s own interpretation of itself. The Bible was written by many different authors over the course of a long period of history; it is therefore not surprising to find later authors reflecting on earlier periods. This innerbiblical interpretation offers the Christian insights into the unique nature of biblical hermeneutics and therefore provides a foundational model in approaching the Bible as the word of God.

The common and preeminent assumption that grounds innerbiblical interpretation is the commitment to ultimate divine authorship. Thus, the writer of Hebrews, though affirming the diversity of human authorship in the Bible (1:1), regularly introduces OT quotations with statements such as “God says” (1:5), “he spoke through David” (4:7), and “the Holy Spirit says” (3:7). Other writers tend to prefer the formula “it is written,” but each of these reflects a common presupposition that the Scriptures are ultimately delivered by God (2 Pet. 1:21).

Divine authorship means, at the very least, that there is a depth of meaning and purpose to the text, a depth often hidden even from the human author (1 Pet. 1:10–12). Psalm 2, for example, probably originally served as a coronation hymn used to celebrate the appointment of a new king in Israel. Yet the NT understands this psalm as a prophecy fulfilled in the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Acts 13:33; Heb. 5:5). The intention of the original speaker can even be at odds with God’s intention, such as when Caiaphas claims, “It is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish” (John 11:50; cf. Acts 5:35–39). In this case, the irony of Caiaphas’s statement creates a powerful testimony, contrary to his intent, and is used by John to promote confidence in Jesus.

Furthermore, because the Scriptures are from God, they have a consistent and central focus. The NT unhesitatingly views all of Scripture, in all its diversity, as focused, by virtue of divine inspiration, on the person and work of Jesus Christ. This is seen in, for example, Luke 24:13–35, where the resurrected Jesus, “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” explains to his disciples “what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself” (cf. John 5:39; 12:41). This central focus on Christ requires the Christian interpreter to understand any individual verse in light of its context within the canon, to operate with the same assumption as the NT apostles, that all the Scriptures are concerned with testifying to Jesus the Christ.

Additionally, Paul views both Testaments as the special possession and once-for-all foundation of God’s church (Eph. 2:19–20; cf. Acts 2:42). The church, from a NT perspective, is the primary audience of the entirety of Scripture (1 Pet. 1:12) and is therefore uniquely entrusted with understanding and proclaiming its message (Matt. 28:18–20). While the Scriptures themselves are the only infallible guide for interpretation, believers should not forsake the teaching and tradition of the church (2 Thess. 2:15).

Finally, full understanding of the Bible requires the work of the Holy Spirit in conjunction with the faith of the reader. Belief and understanding go together (John 10:38), and both are the result of the unique work of the Holy Spirit (16:13). The proof that such understanding has taken place is the godly life of the believer (Rom. 2:13; James 1:22–25). The reverse is also true: disobedience works against understanding the riches of God’s Word (James 1:21). Such considerations underline the importance of the hermeneutical task. The tools and principles of hermeneutics are valuable only insofar as they enable the reader to better understand and appropriate the biblical message, to hear the word of God and respond appropriately.

(1) The second son of Simeon (Gen. 46:10; Exod. 6:15; 1 Chron. 4:24) and a grandson of Jacob, he is also the ancestor of the Jaminite clan (Num. 26:12). (2) The second son of Ram and a grandson of Jerahmeel of Judah (1 Chron. 2:27). (3) One of the thirteen Levites who read and interpreted the law so that the people could understand after Ezra read it (Neh. 8:7–8). It is debated whether they simply explained the law or translated it from Hebrew into Aramaic. For example, in Neh. 8:8 the NIV text has these Levites “making it [the Book of the Law] clear,” while the NIV margin has them “translating” it.

There are difficulties in distinguishing the numerous individuals in the OT named “Jeshua” (see also Joshua), which is also a place name. (1) The head of a Levitical family given by lot the ninth priestly division of temple duties (1 Chron. 24:11). (2) A priest who, during the religious reforms of Hezekiah, helped distribute the freewill offerings for other priests (2 Chron. 31:15). (3) The son of Jozadak, the high priest during the time of Zerubbabel (Ezra 3:2; Neh. 12:26). In many Bible versions, he is referred to as “Jeshua” in Ezra and Nehemiah and “Joshua (son of Jehozadak)” in Haggai and Zechariah (see Hag. 1:1; Zech. 6:11). See Joshua. (4) A key family within the clan of Pahath-Moab, some of whose descendants were officially listed among the returned exiles (Ezra 2:6; Neh. 7:11). (5) A family of priests descended from Jedaiah (Ezra 2:36; Neh. 7:39). (6) A family of Levites descended from Hodaviah (Ezra 2:40; Neh. 7:43; possibly also Neh. 12:8). (7) The father of Jozabad, a Levite (Ezra 8:33). He is perhaps the same person as in 1 Chron. 24:11. (8) The father of Ezer, who ruled Mizpah and helped repair the walls of Jerusalem (Neh. 3:19). (9) A Levite, the son of Azaniah, who helped Ezra explain the law to the people who could not understand the Hebrew language of the Scriptures. He also took part in the signing of a covenant-renewal document (Neh. 8:7; 9:4–5; 10:9). (10) The son of Kadmiel and a leader of the Levites (Neh. 12:24). (11) A village in the south of Judah (Neh. 11:26), perhaps to be identified with Shema (Josh. 15:26) and Sheba (Josh. 19:2). The site is thought to be Tell es-Saweh, twelve miles east-northeast of Beersheba.

(1) A royal official who, with Jeho-za-bad, assassinated King Joash of Judah (2 Kings 12:21). (See also Jozacar, Jozachar.) (2) From Ge-de-rah, he was one of the Benjamite soldiers who joined David at Ziklag (1 Chron. 12:4). (3) Two warriors of Manasseh described as leaders of units of a thousand soldiers (1 Chron. 12:20). They defended David against bands of raiders. (4) A Levite appointed by King Hezekiah who helped keep tally of the offerings given for the work of the temple (2 Chron. 31:13). (5) A leading Levite who donated offerings to King Josiah for the Passover celebration (2 Chron. 35:9). (6) A descendant of Pashhur guilty of intermarriage (Ezra 10:22). (7) The son of Jeshua, he was a Levite who helped make an inventory of the freewill offerings brought by Ezra from Babylon for the temple (Ezra 8:33). (8) A Levite guilty of intermarriage (Ezra 10:23). (9) One of the thirteen Levites who helped interpret and teach while Ezra read from the Book of the Law of God to the returned exiles (Neh. 8:7). (10) A prominent Levite who helped supervise the rebuilding of the temple after the exile (Neh. 11:16). He may be the same individual as in Neh. 8:7.

One of the thirteen Levites who helped the people to understand Ezra’s reading of the law, either by translating into Aramaic or by some other kind of exposition (Neh. 8:7). Kelita also signed the covenant with God following Ezra’s reading of the law (Neh. 10:10), and he had taken a foreign wife, whom he divorced at Ezra’s prompting (Ezra 10:23 [here also identified by another name, “Kelaiah”]).

(1) A Levite recruited to play the lyre during the procession of the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem (1 Chron. 15:18, 20). (2) The son of Adaiah, he was a military commander who covenanted with Jehoiada to remove Athaliah from power and install Joash (2 Chron. 23:1). (3) An officer of King Uzziah who helped organize the army into divisions (2 Chron. 26:11). (4) The son of King Ahaz who was killed by Zikri the Ephraimite (2 Chron. 28:7). (5) An official sent by King Josiah to repair the temple (2 Chron. 34:8). (6) A descendant of Jeshua (Ezra 10:18) listed among those guilty of marrying foreign women during the time of Ezra.

(7) A descendant of Harim (Ezra 10:21) listed among those guilty of marrying foreign women during the time of Ezra. (8) A descendant of Pashhur (Ezra 10:22) listed among those guilty of marrying foreign women during the time of Ezra. (9) A descendant of Pahath-Moab (Ezra 10:30) listed among those guilty of marrying foreign women during the time of Ezra. (10) The son of Ananiah and the father of Azariah, who helped to repair the wall of Jerusalem (Neh. 3:23). (11) One of the leaders who accompanied Ezra as he read the law (Neh. 8:4). (12) One of the thirteen Levites who interpreted the law for the people (Neh. 8:7). (13) One of the leaders who signed Ezra’s covenant (Neh. 10:25). This may be the same person as #9 or 11.

(14) The son of Baruch, he is listed among the first residents of Jerusalem after the exile (Neh. 11:5). (15) A Benjamite ancestor of Sallu (Neh. 11:7). (16) One of the priestly trumpeters who played to dedicate Jerusalem’s walls (Neh. 12:41). He may be the same person as #6, 7, or 8. (17) A priest involved in dedicating the temple (Neh. 12:42). He may be the same person as #6, 7, or 8. (18) The father of Zephaniah the priest (Jer. 21:1; 29:25; 37:3). (19) The father of Zedekiah the prophet (Jer. 29:21). (20) The son of Shallum, he was a temple doorman (Jer. 35:4). He may be the same person as #18.

(1) An ancestor of the musician Asaph (1 Chron. 6:40). (2) A descendant of Aaron, he was the leader of a priestly division during David’s reign (1 Chron. 24:9). (3) The ancestor of Pashhur, who came to Jeremiah with a request from King Zedekiah (Jer. 21:1). (4) An ancestor of Adaiah, who returned to Jerusalem after the exile (1 Chron. 9:12; Neh. 11:12). (5) A descendant of Parosh, he sent away his foreign wife during Ezra’s reforms (Ezra 10:25). (6) A descendant of Harim, he sent away his foreign wife during Ezra’s reforms (Ezra 10:31). (7) The son of Harim, he repaired a section of the Jerusalem wall and the Tower of the Ovens (Neh. 3:11). (8) The son of Rekab, ruler of the district of Beth Hakkerem, he repaired the Dung Gate of the Jerusalem wall (Neh. 3:14). (9) One of the goldsmiths who repaired part of the Jerusalem wall (Neh. 3:31). (10) One of the leaders who stood with Ezra when he read the law of Moses to the people (Neh. 8:4). (11) A priest who signed Ezra’s covenant after the exile (Neh. 10:3). (12) A priest who sang during the dedication of the wall (Neh. 12:42). Some of these references may speak of the same person.

(1) An ancestor of the musician Asaph (1 Chron. 6:40). (2) A descendant of Aaron, he was the leader of a priestly division during David’s reign (1 Chron. 24:9). (3) The ancestor of Pashhur, who came to Jeremiah with a request from King Zedekiah (Jer. 21:1). (4) An ancestor of Adaiah, who returned to Jerusalem after the exile (1 Chron. 9:12; Neh. 11:12). (5) A descendant of Parosh, he sent away his foreign wife during Ezra’s reforms (Ezra 10:25). (6) A descendant of Harim, he sent away his foreign wife during Ezra’s reforms (Ezra 10:31). (7) The son of Harim, he repaired a section of the Jerusalem wall and the Tower of the Ovens (Neh. 3:11). (8) The son of Rekab, ruler of the district of Beth Hakkerem, he repaired the Dung Gate of the Jerusalem wall (Neh. 3:14). (9) One of the goldsmiths who repaired part of the Jerusalem wall (Neh. 3:31). (10) One of the leaders who stood with Ezra when he read the law of Moses to the people (Neh. 8:4). (11) A priest who signed Ezra’s covenant after the exile (Neh. 10:3). (12) A priest who sang during the dedication of the wall (Neh. 12:42). Some of these references may speak of the same person.

(1) A Levite in charge of baking the offering bread for the temple (1 Chron. 9:31). (2) A Levite who accompanied the ark of the covenant from the house of Obed-Edom to Jerusalem (1 Chron. 15:18, 21; 16:5). (3) A son of Jeduthun, also a Levite, who performed musical service in the temple (1 Chron. 25:3, 21). (4) A descendant of Nebo who was guilty of marrying a foreign woman during the time of Ezra (Ezra 10:43). (5) One of the thirteen leaders who stood with Ezra as he read the Book of the Law publicly (Neh. 8:4).

(1) The father of Azaliah and grandfather of Shaphan, the secretary of King Josiah (2 Kings 22:3). (2) A son of Zerubbabel (1 Chron. 3:19). (3) The head of a clan in the tribe of Gad who resided in Bashan (1 Chron. 5:13). (4) A son of Elpaal, a Benjamite (1 Chron. 8:17). (5) The father of Sallu, a Benjamite clan leader who lived in Jerusalem after returning from the exile (1 Chron. 9:7; Neh. 11:7). (6) The son of Shephatiah, he was a Benjamite clan leader who lived in Jerusalem after returning from the exile (1 Chron. 9:8). (7) The father of Hilkiah, he was a member of the priestly line of Zadok (1 Chron. 9:11). (8) The father of Jahzerah and the son of Meshillemith, he was a member of the priestly Zadokite line (1 Chron. 9:12). (9) A descendant of Kohath appointed by King Josiah to oversee the temple repairs (2 Chron. 34:12).

(10) One of the leaders sent by Ezra to procure Levites to serve in the temple after the return from the exile (Ezra 8:16). He was one of the four men who opposed Ezra’s call to divorce foreign women (10:15) and probably also was the son of Bani listed as one of those who had married a foreign woman (10:29). (11) The son of Berekiah, he helped to repair the walls of Jerusalem (Neh. 3:4, 30). His daughter married Tobiah’s son Jehohanan (Neh. 6:18). (12) The son of Besodeiah, he helped to repair the Jeshanah Gate as part of Nehemiah’s rebuilding of Jerusalem (Neh. 3:6).

(13) One of the seven men who stood at Ezra’s left hand during the reading of the Book of the Law to the people of Jerusalem (Neh. 8:4). (14) A priest who, along with Nehemiah, other priests, and chiefs of the people, sealed the covenant renewal after the return from the exile (Neh. 10:7). (15) A chief of the people of Jerusalem who sealed the covenant renewal after the return from the exile (Neh. 10:20). (16) The head of the priestly house of Ezra during the time of the high priest Joiakim (Neh. 12:13). (17) The head of the priestly house of Ginnethon during the time of the high priest Joiakim (Neh. 12:16). (18) A gatekeeper who guarded the storerooms at the gates of Jerusalem in the time of high priest Joiakim (Neh. 12:25). (19) A leader of Judah who participated in the procession at the dedication ceremony for the rebuilt walls of Jerusalem (Neh. 12:33).

(1) A son of Uzziel and a cousin of Moses and Aaron, he carried out of the camp and buried his cousins Nadab and Abihu, who died when they offered unauthorized fire before God (Exod. 6:22; Lev. 10:4). (2) One of the leaders who accompanied Ezra as he read the law (Neh. 8:4). (3) The Hebrew name of one of Daniel’s companions, also called by the Babylonian name “Meshach” (Dan. 1:6–7, 11, 19; 2:17).

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).

(1) The son of Hakaliah, he was a prominent leader of the people of God in the late postexilic period (Neh. 1:1–7:73; 8:9–10; 10:1–13:31). He returned to Jerusalem from the Persian capital, Susa, in order to rebuild the wall of Jerusalem and to fortify the morale of its citizens.

Before his return to Jerusalem, Nehemiah worked as the cupbearer to the king of Persia, Artaxerxes. There are three kings by that name during the history of the Persian Empire, but scholars are generally agreed that Nehemiah worked for Artaxerxes I (r. 464–424 BC). The job of the cupbearer was an important one. The king needed to rely on a close confidante to serve him his drink, since poisoning was an occupational hazard for ancient kings.

Although he was in a powerful position in Persia, Nehemiah was deeply saddened to hear the condition of Jerusalem from his visiting brother Hanani. In particular, the city’s walls were torn down and its gates were burned. While we might assume that the condition of the gates was the result of the Babylonian incursion into the city decades before (587/586 BC), it is possible, though not provable, that a more recent event was responsible.

In either case, Nehemiah could not hide his grief as he served Artaxerxes. Artaxerxes then granted him permission to return to Jerusalem and see to the restoration of the city. The king appointed Nehemiah governor of the Persian province of Yehud (Judah), and he returned to Jerusalem in the king’s twentieth year (445 BC).

Even though Nehemiah had the support of the Persian king, the inhabitants of the land and its leaders, notably Sanballat, did everything they could to undermine his efforts. These people were Samaritans from the north who were the descendants of intermarriage between the people of the north and those whom the Assyrians forced to immigrate there after their defeat of the northern kingdom of Israel in 722 BC. In spite of this opposition, Nehemiah successfully led the people in their efforts to rebuild the walls. In doing so, he showed great leadership skills and courage.

Although they are not often mentioned together, Nehemiah’s work in Jerusalem overlapped with that of Ezra. Both men were passionately concerned about the integrity and faithfulness of the people. Both of them at different times confronted Jewish men who divorced their wives and married pagan women. Nehemiah forcefully compelled them to divorce these foreign wives out of fear that the wives would lead their Jewish husbands to worship false gods.

Nehemiah worked hard, and God blessed him and his efforts in many ways. Even so, the account of Nehemiah’s work ends on a note of continuing problems as the people continued sinning (Neh. 13).

(2) A man who returned to Jerusalem from Babylon along with Zerubbabel in 539 BC (Ezra 2:2).

(3) The son of Azbuk, ruler of a half-district of Beth Zur, he helped rebuild the walls and gates of Jerusalem under the direction of Nehemiah son of Hakaliah (Neh. 3:16).

The middle of the day (1 Kings 18:26–27; 20:16; 2 Kings 4:20; Neh. 8:3; Job 5:14; Ps. 55:17; Isa. 16:3; Jer. 6:4; 20:16; Amos 8:9; Acts 10:9; 22:6; 26:13), at which point the sun is at or near its meridian and the midday meal is eaten (Gen. 43:16). See also Midday.

Descended from Ephraim, Nun was the father of Joshua, the successor of Moses (Exod. 33:11; Neh. 8:17).

(1) The father of Joel, an officer over the half-tribe of Manasseh during the reign of David (1 Chron. 27:20). (2) The maternal grandfather of King Jehoiakim of Judah (2 Kings 23:36). (3) One of the sons of King Jehoiachin of Judah, who was carried off into Babylonian exile in 597 BC (1 Chron. 3:18). According to 1 Chron. 3:19, Pedaiah was the father of Zerubabbel, an important postexilic ruler. Other passages (Ezra 3:2, 8; Hag. 1:1) name Pedaiah’s brother Shealtiel as Zerubabbel’s father, perhaps suggesting a levirate marriage (Deut. 25:5–10). (4) The son of Parosh, he was a builder of the wall of Jerusalem at the time of Nehemiah (Neh. 3:25). This may be the same Pedaiah who stood on the platform with Ezra during his reading of the law (Neh. 8:4). (5) An ancestor of Sallu, a Benjamite who was relocated to Jerusalem during the time of Nehemiah (Neh. 11:7). (6) A Levite whom Nehemiah put in charge of the storerooms of the temple (Neh. 13:13).

(1) One of the sevens sons of Elioenai (1 Chron. 3:24) in the line of Judah. He was a descendant of King David who lived after the exile. (2) A Levite who signed the covenant renewal with God after Ezra’s reading of the law (Neh. 10:10). He was one of thirteen Levites who helped the people to understand Ezra’s reading of the law, either by translating into Aramaic or by some other kind of exposition (Neh. 8:7).

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 structure that a preacher stands on, in, or behind while delivering a sermon (Neh. 8:4 KJV [NIV: “platform”]). Depending on time period and style, a pulpit may have been a box, an elevated platform, or a tall and narrow stand that held the speaker’s notes.

A Levite in the postexilic period involved in Ezra’s decree against having foreign wives (Ezra 10:15). The significance of the verse is disputed, but it appears that Shabbethai and others named in the verse represent a dissenting party. They are likely opposing not the divorce but rather the laxity of the suggested plan to carry it out. He is also likely the same person who supported Ezra’s policy (Neh. 8:7; 11:16).

(1) A town in the territory of Judah (Josh. 15:26). Some have argued that it is the same as the town of Sheba, depending upon the translation (Josh. 19:2). (2) An individual in the tribe of Judah, of the clan of Caleb (1 Chron. 2:43–44). (3) A Reubenite (1 Chron. 5:8). (4) A Benjamite who was the head of a family in the city of Aijalon and is known for driving away the men of Gath (1 Chron. 8:13). He is later referenced as “Shimei” (1 Chron. 8:21). (5) One of those who stood to Ezra’s right side as he read the law to the Israelites (Neh. 8:4).

(1) A Levite sent to accompany Ezra (Ezra 8:18). Sherebiah was one of twelve men entrusted with carrying temple treasure to Jerusalem (8:24). This may be the same person listed in Neh. 10:12 and 12:24. The Sherebiah contemporary with Ezra who assisted with the interpretation of the law (Neh. 8:7) and with public worship (Neh. 9:4–5) is also likely the same person mentioned in Ezra 8:18. (2) A Le-vite who returned with Zerubbabel (Neh. 12:8).

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

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

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).

(1) The ill-fated husband of Bathsheba, with whom David had an illicit affair. His designation as “the Hittite” implies an ethnic tie to the Anatolian Hittite Empire, in modern-day Turkey. David conspired with his military leader Joab to have Uriah murdered in order to cover up the scandal of a child conceived from David’s unchecked lust for Bathsheba (2 Sam. 11; 1 Chron. 11:41). (2) A priest of Judah, the southern kingdom of Israel, during the reign of Ahaz, he built a new altar in the temple in accordance with the sketch and plan of a foreign altar that Ahaz had seen in Damascus (2 Kings 16:10–16). This is likely the same Uriah referred to in Isa. 8:2–4 as one of two reliable witnesses Isaiah uses to testify to a prophetic oracle written on a tablet. (3) The son of Shemaiah from Kiriath Jearim, he joined Jeremiah in prophesying against the city of Jerusalem and the land of Judah during the reign of Jehoiakim. He was persecuted, captured, and put to death by Jehoiakim, and his body was thrown in the burial place of common people (Jer. 26:20–23). (4) One of the men who stood with Ezra when he publicly read the law to the people (Neh. 8:4). (5) Father of Meremoth, who repaired part of the wall of Jerusalem (Ezra 8:33; Neh. 3:4, 21).

(1) The ill-fated husband of Bathsheba, with whom David had an illicit affair. His designation as “the Hittite” implies an ethnic tie to the Anatolian Hittite Empire, in modern-day Turkey. David conspired with his military leader Joab to have Uriah murdered in order to cover up the scandal of a child conceived from David’s unchecked lust for Bathsheba (2 Sam. 11; 1 Chron. 11:41). (2) A priest of Judah, the southern kingdom of Israel, during the reign of Ahaz, he built a new altar in the temple in accordance with the sketch and plan of a foreign altar that Ahaz had seen in Damascus (2 Kings 16:10–16). This is likely the same Uriah referred to in Isa. 8:2–4 as one of two reliable witnesses Isaiah uses to testify to a prophetic oracle written on a tablet. (3) The son of Shemaiah from Kiriath Jearim, he joined Jeremiah in prophesying against the city of Jerusalem and the land of Judah during the reign of Jehoiakim. He was persecuted, captured, and put to death by Jehoiakim, and his body was thrown in the burial place of common people (Jer. 26:20–23). (4) One of the men who stood with Ezra when he publicly read the law to the people (Neh. 8:4). (5) Father of Meremoth, who repaired part of the wall of Jerusalem (Ezra 8:33; Neh. 3:4, 21).

(1) A king of Israel, the son of Jeroboam II (2 Kings 14:29). His reign was cut short at six months due to his assassination by Shallum (15:8–12). (2) The maternal grandfather of King Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:2; 2 Chron. 29:1). (3) A Reubenite listed between Jeiel the chief and Bela son of Azaz (1 Chron. 5:7). (4) A son of Meshelemiah, he was a gatekeeper at the tent of meeting during the reign of David (1 Chron. 9:21; 26:2). He was assigned the North Gate and was considered a wise individual (1 Chron. 26:14).

(5) The ninth of the ten sons of Jeiel and Maakah, in the genealogy of Saul (1 Chron. 9:37). He is called “Zeker” in 1 Chron. 8:31. (6) A Levitical musician who played lyre and harp during the reign of David (1 Chron. 15:18, 20; 16:5). (7) A son of Ishiah (1 Chron. 24:25). (8) The fourth son of Hosah, a gatekeeper (1 Chron. 26:11). (9) The father of Iddo, officer over the half-tribe of Manasseh in Gilead (1 Chron. 27:21).

(10) One of the five officials sent by King Jehoshaphat to teach the law in Judah (2 Chron. 17:7). (11) The father of the prophet Jahaziel (2 Chron. 20:14). (12) A son of King Jehoshaphat (2 Chron. 21:2). (13) A prophet, the son of Jehoiada the priest (2 Chron. 24:20). During the reign of Joash, he was stoned after prophesying against the people. He probably is the person mentioned in Matt. 23:35 // Luke 11:51, even though there is confusion about his genealogy. (14) A prophet who instructed King Uzziah in reverence and obedience to God (2 Chron. 26:5). (15) A Levite during the reign of Hezekiah, descended from Asaph (2 Chron. 29:13). (16) A Kohathite Levite who supervised temple repairs during the reforms of King Josiah (2 Chron. 34:12). (17) A temple administrator under King Josiah (2 Chron. 35:8).

(18) A prophet contemporary with Haggai and Ezra (Ezra 5:1). He was the son of Berekiah, a grandson of Iddo, and the head of Iddo’s priestly line (Zech. 1:1; Ezra 5:1; Neh. 12:16). His career as a prophet began in the second year of Darius (Zech. 1:1). (See also Zechariah, Book of.) (19) Returned from exile with Ezra and 150 men from the descendants of Parosh (Ezra 8:3). (20) The son of Bebai, he returned from exile with Ezra and twenty-eight men of the descendants of Bebai (Ezra 8:11). (21) One of the nine leaders sent by Ezra to Kasiphia to bring Levites back to Jerusalem to serve in the temple (Ezra 8:16). He is probably also one of the thirteen men who stood beside Ezra for the reading of the law (Neh. 8:4).

(22) One of the descendants of Elam listed among those guilty of marrying a foreign woman during the time of Ezra (Ezra 10:26). (23) An ancestor of Athaiah, one of the Judahite provinicial leaders who returned from exile (Neh. 11:4). (24) An ancestor of Maaseiah, one of the Judahite provinicial leaders who returned from exile (Neh. 11:5). (25) An ancestor of Adaiah, one of the family heads among the priests who returned from exile (Neh. 11:12). (26) The son of Jonathan, he was one of the priests who played trumpets at the dedication of the Jerusalem wall at the time of Nehemiah (Neh. 12:35, 41).

An ancestor of temple servants (Nethinim) who returned to Jerusalem after the Babylonian captivity under the leadership of Zerubbabel in 539 BC or soon after (Ezra 2:50 [missing from the list in Neh. 7]). The fact that many of the names in the list are foreign (“Asnah” appears to be Egyptian) has led to the belief that they were originally prisoners of war who were pressed into service to do menial tasks as they assisted the Levites.

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).

Every faithful translation of the Bible is the word of God. In this respect, Christianity is very different from Islam, which considers the Arabic version of the Qur’an exclusively holy. It is true that only the original versions of the biblical books, which were written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, were verbally inspired, and this means that individual translations, like copies, can contain errors. Translations also necessarily involve some degree of interpretation. However, all language is created by God, and in the incarnation the Word became fully human as well as fully divine. In God’s hands, every human language is as capable as any other of expressing his truth.

Since Pentecost, the Holy Spirit has been at work to reverse the effect of human sin at Babel (Gen. 11:9), not by reducing all languages to one, but by redeeming the diversity and richness of the world’s languages so that all can hear God speak to them in their own tongue (Acts 2:1–11). Indeed, translations of Scripture themselves transform the languages and cultures in which they are written, endowing them with new or revised concepts of God, humanity, sin, and the means of salvation.

The History of Translation

Bible translation began long before the Bible as we know it was complete. In the fifth century BC the Israelites who returned from exile spoke Aramaic. Thus, they needed the Levites to translate the Hebrew law for them (Neh. 8:8). This Levitical teaching was probably an early example of a Targum, a translation into Aramaic with interpretation and expansion. We do not know exactly when the Targumim began to be written down, but some of the earliest fragments that have been found are among the DSS.

By about the third century BC the dominant languages of Palestine were Greek and Aramaic. Many NT quotations from the OT use an established Greek translation of the OT. This was known as the Septuagint (LXX), after the legend that it was translated by seventy-two men, six from each tribe of Israel, on the orders of Ptolemy Philadelphus of Egypt (285–247 BC). The NT was written in similar “common” (koinē) Greek, but in some places the Gospels and Acts translate words that Jesus and Paul originally spoke in Aramaic (Mark 5:41; 15:34; Acts 21:40; 22:2; 26:14; see also John 5:2; 19:13, 17, 20; 20:16).

Until Pentecost, God’s revelation was translated only into the languages spoken by the Jewish people in their everyday life. At Pentecost, however, the coming of the Holy Spirit was marked by a display of miraculous linguistic gifts, and a new era of Bible translation had begun (Acts 2). As Christians obeyed Christ’s command to take the word of God into all the world, they began to translate it into all the languages used by the growing church.

Within three centuries, Scripture was translated from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into Syriac, Coptic, and Latin. The earliest translations into these languages were then revised and improved in the subsequent centuries until some, such as Jerome’s Latin Vulgate and the Syriac Peshitta, emerged as acknowledged standards. Other early translations included Ethiopic, Armenian, Georgian, and Old Slavonic. Many of these languages were already written, but as missionaries ventured further, they sometimes had to start by reducing spoken languages to writing. Ulfilas, missionary to the Goths, was the first to do this.

All of the thirty-three translations prior to the Reformation had to be copied out by hand, and almost all were “secondary translations” made from the Latin. Moreover, despite the efforts of early reformers such as John Wycliffe (AD 1330–84), the Catholic Church continued to use the Latin text itself, which was accessible only to the educated. In the sixteenth century, however, the printing press was invented, Renaissance scholars rediscovered the value of consulting texts in the original Hebrew and Greek, and Protestantism realized that believers need the Bible in their mother tongue.

The most influential sixteenth-century translator into English was William Tyndale (1494–1536). His work on the NT and parts of the OT was gradually expanded and revised by other scholars, culminating in the 1611 King James Version, which is still widely used. Meanwhile, other European translations were produced in German (by Martin Luther), Spanish, Hungarian, Portuguese, and French.

The Reformation also gave new momentum to mission outside Europe, and by the end of the eighteenth century the number of languages having the Bible had roughly doubled. A much greater global achievement, however, began in the nineteenth century, when the newly formed Bible societies, with other mission agencies, were instrumental in the translation and publication of portions of Scripture in over four hundred languages. Famous translators from this century include William Carey in India, John Robert Morrison in China, Henry Martyn in Persia, and Adoniram Judson in Burma. About five hundred more translations were added in the first half of the twentieth century. Progress was, nevertheless, slow. Many languages were difficult to analyze, and it was particularly hard to produce translations that read smoothly, using the genres and idioms that a native speaker would use.

Since the 1950s, linguistic science has revolutionized the way that translation is carried out, and organizations such as Wycliffe Bible Translators have set themselves the task of giving every person in the world the Scriptures in their everyday language. Increasingly, translation is carried out by linguistically trained native speakers of the target languages, working wherever possible from the original Hebrew and Greek. Translators understand better than before how extended discourses are constructed at levels above the sentence, and how social and pragmatic factors affect meaning. The combination of linguistics and technology has also greatly increased the speed with which translations can be produced; sometimes a first draft in a new language can be generated from a closely related language using a computer program.

Types of Translation

All translators aim for both accuracy and acceptability, but the work of translation constantly involves compromise between these two factors. There are, broadly speaking, two types of translation: formal correspondence and functional equivalence.

In a formal correspondence translation (also called “literal”), the translator, as far as possible, preserves the word order and structure of the original text and translates each word the same way every time it occurs, even if the result is slightly wooden. This is helpful for word studies, and it preserves patterns of repetition that give structure to the text. There is always a danger, however, that the closest formal match to the original actually conveys a meaning different from the original in a particular context. Literalness is not the same as accuracy. Pushed to its extreme, formal correspondence produces the kind of semitranslation found in interlinear texts (where the English is reproduced word for word below a line of Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek); it is not grammatically acceptable, cannot be used on its own for public or private reading, and loses many of the nuances of the original. However, formal correspondence translations that avoid such extremes are important for detailed Bible study.

In a functional equivalence translation (also called “dynamic,” “idiomatic equivalence,” or “meaning-based”), the translator aims to produce the same response in a modern reader as the original text would have done in an ancient reader. To achieve this, the syntactic structures and figures of speech of Greek and Hebrew are replaced by their equivalents in the target language. A word may be translated many different ways in different contexts, even when it has a single basic meaning in the original. While this preserves some nuances, it loses others, obscuring structure and the deliberate echo of one verse in another. In this case there is always a danger that the translator has misunderstood the original meaning and the response that it would have produced. Pushed to its extreme, this type shades into paraphrase, and it may be overly subjective or jeopardize the historical particularity of the text. However, dynamic equivalence translations that avoid such pitfalls are valuable for evangelism, new readers, and public and devotional reading.

In practice most translations sit somewhere on the spectrum between these two extremes. Some intermediate translations are a deliberate compromise, aiming to keep as close as possible to the original while communicating its meaning clearly in a common language that is accessible to all. The NIV is a widely used example. One problem in using such a translation is knowing when form has been preserved at the expense of meaning, and when meaning has been preserved at the expense of form. For serious study, therefore, it is useful to compare intermediate translations with translations of the other two types, and to learn from the introductory material what translation principles have been used.

To illustrate the differences between the types of translation, consider how Rom. 3:21 is rendered by the NASB (formal correspondence), the NIV (intermediate), and the NLT (functional equivalence):

But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets. (NASB)

But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. (NIV)

But now God has shown us a way to be made right with him without keeping the requirements of the law, as was promised in the writings of Moses and the prophets long ago. (NLT)

Further Choices in Translation

Within this spectrum translators have further detailed decisions to make.

First, what are the best available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts, as determined by the discipline of textual criticism?

Second, what style should be used? An elevated or archaic style is sometimes preferred in order to convey the dignity of the word; others use a deliberately colloquial style in order to maximize accessibility. Different books of the Bible themselves have different styles and genres, ranging from vivid stories and evocative poems to precise doctrinal formulations, and a translation may attempt to reflect this diversity. At the same time, the style and range of vocabulary chosen will depend to some extent on the needs of the target audience.

Third, should the translation contain complexity and ambiguity when the original does, or should it clarify and simplify? Some parts of Scripture were never easy reading even in the original (see 2 Pet. 3:15–16). However, it is sometimes necessary to disambiguate in order to produce grammatically acceptable text in the target language. In modern books it is also normal to divide text into paragraphs and chapters, often with subheadings. Ancient texts, however, were written without any such breaks, so this too is an interpretation of the text for the sake of clarity.

Fourth, what should the translator do when there is no equivalent word or phrase in the target language? Many people groups have never seen a sheep! Sometimes a choice must be made between coining a new word and refocusing the meaning of an existing word. This is particularly difficult when deciding how to refer to God in a pagan culture. Translating gesture can also be challenging. For example, in Jer. 31:19 the Hebrew is literally “I slapped my thigh,” which is an indication of distress; but in Western culture slapping one’s thigh would probably mean enjoying a good joke, so the NIV translates the Hebrew as “beat my breast.” Footnotes may be necessary to ensure that the meaning is fully understood.

Finally, in cultures that have possessed the Bible for many generations tradition plays a role. A previous translation of a particular verse may be so well known that, unless it is seriously wrong, it is preferable to let it stand than to “modernize” it. Conversely, tradition may so change the meaning of “biblical” words (such as “saint”) that verses containing them need to be retranslated.

As a result of all these decisions, there is scope for many different translations even in a single language. Where several translations exist, serious study should always include comparison between translations along with the use of commentaries. Where available resources as yet permit only one translation in a language, the type of translation to be produced must be chosen with great care. In either case, new translations will always be needed. On the one hand, although God’s word never changes, scholars can improve our textual, linguistic, and exegetical understanding of the Hebrew and Greek originals. On the other hand, the human languages into which the Bible is translated are in a process of constant change.

Gender-Neutral Translations

Recent English-language translations have grappled in particular with the question of gender neutrality. All languages differ in the way they denote gender. Until recently, the masculine gender in English was also the inclusive gender; hence, “man” could simply mean “person” or “humanity.” In many cases, the biblical languages work the same way, so that the older dynamic translations could, like formal correspondence translations, mirror the original. Feminist concerns, however, have changed English usage. It is increasingly unacceptable to use the masculine gender inclusively, and everyday language now substitutes plurals (“person,” or “they” with singular meaning) or expansions (“man or woman,” “he or she”). This introduces a divergence between formal correspondence translations, which preserve the gender usage of the original, and functional equivalence translations, which prefer inclusive forms to masculine forms if the meaning of the original is entirely inclusive. To complicate matters further, many careful readers of Scripture disagree on where masculine nuances exist and how important they are, in each specific instance, to the meaning of the text.

Hermeneutics is the science and practice of interpretation. It can refer more generally to the philosophy of human understanding, or more specifically to the tools and methods used for interpreting communicative acts.

Human communication takes place in a variety of ways: through the use of nonverbal signs, through speech, and through writing. Effective communication requires some degree of shared belief, knowledge, and background between the participants. If the communicators have a significant amount of common ground, they will be able to successfully understand one another with little extra effort. Conversely, individuals with vastly different backgrounds will need to take extra steps to communicate effectively, such as defining special terms, avoiding jargon and colloquialisms, appreciating details about the other’s cultural assumptions, or learning a foreign language.

The Bible is not exempt from this process of communication. The Scriptures are meant to be read, understood, and put into practice (Luke 8:4–15; James 1:18), a task that requires effort and study on the part of its readers (Acts 17:11; 2 Tim. 2:15). Everyone who reads the Bible is involved in this interpretative process, though readers will vary in their hermeneutical self-consciousness and skill. Thus, although readers are able to understand and appropriate much of the Bible without any special training in hermeneutical principles, such training is appropriate and helpful, both in attaining self-consciousness in interpretation and in acquiring new skills and insights in the effort to become a better reader.

The Development of Hermeneutics

The church has benefited from a long history of thinking about the nature and purpose of interpreting its Scriptures, and that reflection has resulted in a wide variety of hermeneutical theories and practices. How does one determine the meaning of a text? Is meaning the truth embedded within the passage? Or is it the original author’s intention in writing? Or does the text act independently of its author and history, either because it stands on its own terms or because it only “means” anything in interaction with readers? The answers to these questions will determine how readers approach a text, the questions they expect that text to answer, and the tools they use in interpretation.

From the early church to the Enlightenment. The early church emphasized the ability of the biblical text to convey heavenly truth, whether that truth was conceived as doctrinal teaching or absolute ethical rules. While the “literal meaning” of many texts could often supply simple truths and maxims, such a reading was at other times inadequate and could appear incompatible with what were considered basic and fundamental beliefs. Various allegorical techniques were therefore employed to explain such problematic texts. Interpreters often viewed the literal and historical features of the text as a starting point in the search for fuller meaning, as symbolic pointers to moral principles, absolute truths, or eternal realities. These practices were systematized throughout the Middle Ages and resulted in an extensive development of tradition. Church tradition, in turn, provided a degree of protection from the potential for arbitrariness in allegorical techniques, insisting that interpretation must be guided by the “rule of faith,” the traditional teaching and faith of the church.

Beginning in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, scholarship moved to distance itself from such tradition. The Protestant Reformers, dissatisfied with the rule of church tradition, sought to displace its authority with the direct rule of Scripture. They therefore returned to the original biblical text, engaging in critical study of the text itself and translating the Bible into the vernacular to make it more widely accessible. In the centuries that followed, Enlightenment scholars went a step further in their rejection of the church as the sole repository of knowledge. Instead, they asserted, knowledge was acquired through scientific inquiry and critical study. Such inquiry could be applied to any field: the forces of nature, human anatomy, or the interpretation of texts. The meaning of a text was not some abstract truth or heavenly principle; rather, meaning was determined by the human author’s original intention in writing and was therefore a historical matter. The intention of an author could be better exposed and understood through a more complete study of both the language in which a text was written and the historical circumstances that surrounded it. Many of these same emphases had been championed by the Protestant Reformers; yet the Enlightenment thinkers differed on one key point: the Reformers never questioned that the text was the word of God.

From the Enlightenment to the present. This favorable attitude toward historical research dwindled over the centuries. In its place authors emphasized the primacy of the text as text, apart from any connection to its origin and history. Literature, it is argued, ultimately operates independently from its author’s intention. All that matters is the text, and it is the reader’s job to understand the text on its own terms, apart from the contingencies surrounding its creation. To that end, interpreters should pay careful attention to the text’s literary features, including its plot structure, characterization, themes, and use of imagery. An interesting example of this hermeneutical dynamic is found in John 19:22, where Pilate asserts, “What I have written, I have written.” Pilate’s words quickly take on significance far beyond their author’s intention, primarily because they are juxtaposed with other themes in John, such as testimony and the kingship of Christ.

More recent approaches have emphasized the role of the reader in the construction of meaning. Interpretation, it is argued, is determined by the interaction between reader and text; readers bring their own presuppositions to the task of interpretation, and such assumptions determine meaning. The author and the historical context of the text will exert some influence, but the primary determinant of meaning is the present reader in his or her present environment. This is not to say that the text “means” whatever a reader wants it to mean; rather, it makes meaning contingent upon the contemporary environment and not subject to anything external to individual readers. On the one hand, readers must“actualize” the text by applying and appropriating it within an environment alien to the original. On the other, readers have the right, and in some cases the responsibility, of undermining the text, particularly if that text assists in the oppression of others.

Elements of an Effective Hermeneutic

An effective hermeneutic requires keeping each of these elements in constant balance with one another. God’s word is truthful and fully trustworthy, yet it is given to his people through individual human authors, authors who wrote in a particular context to a particular audience at a particular time. Understanding the Bible therefore requires knowledge of the purposes of these authors in their specific historical contexts. Nevertheless, our primary access to authorial intention is through the biblical text itself. Finally, understanding always requires personal interaction with, and application of, the text of Scripture to each person’s own life and circumstances. Thus, hermeneutics involves the simultaneous interaction of a variety of perspectives—truth, author, text, and reader—each of which cannot function properly without the others. What follows here is an outline of the most important hermeneutical tools required for such a weighty endeavor.

Linguistics

An appreciation of the nature, structure, and function of language is fundamental to any interpretative endeavor. Obviously, this applies first of all to the specific languages in which the books of the Bible were originally composed. Each language has its own unique vocabulary, grammar, and syntax, and structures available to a writer in one language often are absent in another. Thus, while it is often necessary and acceptable to rely on translations (Neh. 7:73–8:12), readers should be aware that translation itself involves a degree of unavoidable interpretation.

A more general analysis of language is also useful. Understanding the typical patterns by which authors will string sentences together is necessary for following a writing’s train of thought. This tool, called “discourse analysis,” operates above the sentence level, attempting to understand and explain how sentences function in conjunction with one another in order to produce meaningful paragraphs, and how those paragraphs in turn operate within the overarching purpose of the discourse. These patterns of discourse can vary on the basis of book, author, language, culture, and literary genre, but there are also features of effective discourse common to all communication. Thus, while the principles and rules of communication are often intuitively grasped, understanding language, both generally and specifically, is foundational to the task of interpretation.

Literature and Literary Theory

The biblical writers are concerned not only with the informational content of their writing, but also with the manner in which that content is communicated. The words, patterns of speech, style, and imagery of any text provide significant insight into its purpose and message, apart from that text’s specific propositional content. The diversity of language used in the Gospels provides an example of this. Each of the four Gospel authors has a slightly different concern in his writing. John’s purpose, “that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31), explains his frequent use of courtroom language, such as “testimony” and “witness” (e.g., John 21:24). Mark, by contrast, sweeps the reader along a fast-paced and intensely personal exposition of Jesus’ life and death through the terseness and immediacy of his narration. Attention to these literary details allows the reader to more fully participate in the world of the text.

Such decisions will often depend upon a thorough analysis of genre. A reader naturally interprets historical narrative differently from poetry and didactic material. Furthermore, the conventions of different genres change over time. The book of Acts, for example, despite its essentially historical character, does not appear concerned with recording an exact dictation of the many speeches it reports, despite modern expectations that historical writing should be as precise as possible. The classification of ancient genres and the description of their respective conventions therefore require a good deal of analysis and sensitivity, but often such insights are provided by a careful and open reading of the text.

History

As the product of a particular author at a particular time, each book of the Bible is situated within its own unique historical context. Paul, for example, while perhaps conscious of the importance of his letters for posterity, wrote to specific churches or individuals with a singular purpose. This particularity of author, audience, and circumstance can often cause interpretative problems. Thus, while background studies are not always necessary to get the general idea of the author’s message, they can be invaluable in protecting readers from anachronism and enabling them to better appreciate the author’s purpose and perspective.

Historical study is assisted by specialized disciplines. Archaeology, for example, focuses on the beliefs, habits, practices, and history of ancient cultures, harnessing a wealth of evidence to that end. Similarly, anthropology and other social sciences are able to explore facets of modern cultures in order to better assess cross-cultural presuppositions and behaviors, many of which provide insight into ancient civilizations that shared similar attitudes. These methods provide the reader with the information necessary to understand a text in terms consistent with its cultural backdrop, highlighting both the similarities and the differences between the Bible and its environment. Recent discoveries of ancient Hittite treaties, for example, shed light on the “cutting ceremony” recorded in Gen. 15. These treaties detail similar ceremonies in which the vassal of a king would walk between hewed animal carcasses as a symbol of allegiance; if disobedience occurred, the vassal would share the fate of the animals. A similar ceremony occurs in Genesis, but with an interesting twist at the end: God, not Abram, passes through the pieces (15:17).

Humility and the Attitude of the Reader

Careful attention in interpretation requires a great deal of humility. It is difficult to overstate the importance of the attitude of the reader for an effective hermeneutic. Being a good reader requires willingness to share and participate in the world of the author and the text, a willingness that postpones judgment and expects personal change. This, in turn, requires a spirit of self-criticism, a commitment to defer one’s own presuppositions in favor of those of the text. Although readers are never able to fully distance themselves from their cultural situation and assumptions, the study of hermeneutics, among other things, can provide tools and skills for self-criticism and self-awareness, skills that enable the reader to better understand, appreciate, and appropriate the meaning of a text. Even a peripheral understanding of the complexities of interpretation can help readers develop an attitude of humility, imagination, and expectation as they approach the Scriptures.

Such humility is a prerequisite for application. The depth of meaning embedded in any text, and especially within the Bible, provides the humble reader with a rich and powerful tool for personal growth. Having better understood the world of the text on its own terms, readers are able to “project” that world onto themselves and their environment, to appropriate its meaning in a new and possibly foreign context. Thus, Jesus promises that those who hear, understand, and put his word into practice will yield a crop “some thirty, some sixty, some a hundred times what was sown” (Mark 4:20).

Unique Features of Biblical Interpretation

Certain unique features of the biblical text can create special opportunities and challenges for the Christian interpreter. These challenges are at work in the Bible’s own interpretation of itself. The Bible was written by many different authors over the course of a long period of history; it is therefore not surprising to find later authors reflecting on earlier periods. This innerbiblical interpretation offers the Christian insights into the unique nature of biblical hermeneutics and therefore provides a foundational model in approaching the Bible as the word of God.

The common and preeminent assumption that grounds innerbiblical interpretation is the commitment to ultimate divine authorship. Thus, the writer of Hebrews, though affirming the diversity of human authorship in the Bible (1:1), regularly introduces OT quotations with statements such as “God says” (1:5), “he spoke through David” (4:7), and “the Holy Spirit says” (3:7). Other writers tend to prefer the formula “it is written,” but each of these reflects a common presupposition that the Scriptures are ultimately delivered by God (2 Pet. 1:21).

Divine authorship means, at the very least, that there is a depth of meaning and purpose to the text, a depth often hidden even from the human author (1 Pet. 1:10–12). Psalm 2, for example, probably originally served as a coronation hymn used to celebrate the appointment of a new king in Israel. Yet the NT understands this psalm as a prophecy fulfilled in the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Acts 13:33; Heb. 5:5). The intention of the original speaker can even be at odds with God’s intention, such as when Caiaphas claims, “It is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish” (John 11:50; cf. Acts 5:35–39). In this case, the irony of Caiaphas’s statement creates a powerful testimony, contrary to his intent, and is used by John to promote confidence in Jesus.

Furthermore, because the Scriptures are from God, they have a consistent and central focus. The NT unhesitatingly views all of Scripture, in all its diversity, as focused, by virtue of divine inspiration, on the person and work of Jesus Christ. This is seen in, for example, Luke 24:13–35, where the resurrected Jesus, “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” explains to his disciples “what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself” (cf. John 5:39; 12:41). This central focus on Christ requires the Christian interpreter to understand any individual verse in light of its context within the canon, to operate with the same assumption as the NT apostles, that all the Scriptures are concerned with testifying to Jesus the Christ.

Additionally, Paul views both Testaments as the special possession and once-for-all foundation of God’s church (Eph. 2:19–20; cf. Acts 2:42). The church, from a NT perspective, is the primary audience of the entirety of Scripture (1 Pet. 1:12) and is therefore uniquely entrusted with understanding and proclaiming its message (Matt. 28:18–20). While the Scriptures themselves are the only infallible guide for interpretation, believers should not forsake the teaching and tradition of the church (2 Thess. 2:15).

Finally, full understanding of the Bible requires the work of the Holy Spirit in conjunction with the faith of the reader. Belief and understanding go together (John 10:38), and both are the result of the unique work of the Holy Spirit (16:13). The proof that such understanding has taken place is the godly life of the believer (Rom. 2:13; James 1:22–25). The reverse is also true: disobedience works against understanding the riches of God’s Word (James 1:21). Such considerations underline the importance of the hermeneutical task. The tools and principles of hermeneutics are valuable only insofar as they enable the reader to better understand and appropriate the biblical message, to hear the word of God and respond appropriately.

There are several censuses in Scripture, and their concern is not simply to account for the number of people or the number of men available for military service; they also have a literary and theological function.

In the creation narrative in Gen. 1–11 the fulfillment of the creation mandate is accounted for through the genealogy of Adam (Gen. 5) and the genealogy of the sons of Noah (Gen. 9:18–19; 10:1–32), which serve as a type of census. The creation narrative has a universal scope; it attempts to account for the total human population on earth.

Census lists are given for the Abrahamic family (Abraham-Isaac-Jacob line) as it grows to become a nation in accordance with God’s promise to Abraham of a great nation and innumerable offspring (Gen. 12:1–3; 15:5). The total number of Jacob’s descendants who went to Egypt was seventy (Gen. 46:8–27; Exod. 1:1–4). This old generation of Israel passed, and a new generation was born that was fruitful, multiplied, and became exceedingly numerous (Exod. 1:6–7). The total number of men of at least twenty years of age who came out of Egypt was 603,550 (Num. 1:1–46; cf. Exod. 12:37–38), and of the new generation that stood on the verge of entering the Promised Land, 601,730 (Num. 26:1–51).

In the book of Numbers there are two census accounts (actually, military registrations). These are important to the structure and theme of the book. The theme of Numbers has to do with the judgment on the first generation (the object of the census in Num. 1) and the hope for the second generation, which will enter the Promised Land (the object of the second census).

David conducted a census to measure his military power, but this is condemned by God and regarded as satanic (2 Sam. 24:1–17; 1 Chron. 21:1–30). For the Chronicler, any attempt to account for the total number of Israelite men twenty years and older, similar to the census in the book of Numbers, is regarded as challenging God’s promise to make Israel as numerous as the stars (1 Chron. 29:23–26).

Ezra and Nehemiah contain census lists of the returnees from exile: under Zerubbabel, 42,360 men returned (Ezra 2:1–66; Neh. 7:4–73), and under Ezra, 1,496 men (Ezra 8:1–14).

In the NT, Jesus participates in the universal census that encompasses not only Israel but other nations as well—a census of the entire Roman world (Luke 2:1–7). The census motif reaches its fulfillment when a great multitude from every nation, tribe, people, and language will stand before the throne and in front of the Lamb, symbolized by the 144,000 from the twelve tribes of Israel, 12,000 from each tribe (Rev. 7:4–10).

Hermeneutics is the science and practice of interpretation. It can refer more generally to the philosophy of human understanding, or more specifically to the tools and methods used for interpreting communicative acts.

Human communication takes place in a variety of ways: through the use of nonverbal signs, through speech, and through writing. Effective communication requires some degree of shared belief, knowledge, and background between the participants. If the communicators have a significant amount of common ground, they will be able to successfully understand one another with little extra effort. Conversely, individuals with vastly different backgrounds will need to take extra steps to communicate effectively, such as defining special terms, avoiding jargon and colloquialisms, appreciating details about the other’s cultural assumptions, or learning a foreign language.

The Bible is not exempt from this process of communication. The Scriptures are meant to be read, understood, and put into practice (Luke 8:4–15; James 1:18), a task that requires effort and study on the part of its readers (Acts 17:11; 2 Tim. 2:15). Everyone who reads the Bible is involved in this interpretative process, though readers will vary in their hermeneutical self-consciousness and skill. Thus, although readers are able to understand and appropriate much of the Bible without any special training in hermeneutical principles, such training is appropriate and helpful, both in attaining self-consciousness in interpretation and in acquiring new skills and insights in the effort to become a better reader.

The Development of Hermeneutics

The church has benefited from a long history of thinking about the nature and purpose of interpreting its Scriptures, and that reflection has resulted in a wide variety of hermeneutical theories and practices. How does one determine the meaning of a text? Is meaning the truth embedded within the passage? Or is it the original author’s intention in writing? Or does the text act independently of its author and history, either because it stands on its own terms or because it only “means” anything in interaction with readers? The answers to these questions will determine how readers approach a text, the questions they expect that text to answer, and the tools they use in interpretation.

From the early church to the Enlightenment. The early church emphasized the ability of the biblical text to convey heavenly truth, whether that truth was conceived as doctrinal teaching or absolute ethical rules. While the “literal meaning” of many texts could often supply simple truths and maxims, such a reading was at other times inadequate and could appear incompatible with what were considered basic and fundamental beliefs. Various allegorical techniques were therefore employed to explain such problematic texts. Interpreters often viewed the literal and historical features of the text as a starting point in the search for fuller meaning, as symbolic pointers to moral principles, absolute truths, or eternal realities. These practices were systematized throughout the Middle Ages and resulted in an extensive development of tradition. Church tradition, in turn, provided a degree of protection from the potential for arbitrariness in allegorical techniques, insisting that interpretation must be guided by the “rule of faith,” the traditional teaching and faith of the church.

Beginning in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, scholarship moved to distance itself from such tradition. The Protestant Reformers, dissatisfied with the rule of church tradition, sought to displace its authority with the direct rule of Scripture. They therefore returned to the original biblical text, engaging in critical study of the text itself and translating the Bible into the vernacular to make it more widely accessible. In the centuries that followed, Enlightenment scholars went a step further in their rejection of the church as the sole repository of knowledge. Instead, they asserted, knowledge was acquired through scientific inquiry and critical study. Such inquiry could be applied to any field: the forces of nature, human anatomy, or the interpretation of texts. The meaning of a text was not some abstract truth or heavenly principle; rather, meaning was determined by the human author’s original intention in writing and was therefore a historical matter. The intention of an author could be better exposed and understood through a more complete study of both the language in which a text was written and the historical circumstances that surrounded it. Many of these same emphases had been championed by the Protestant Reformers; yet the Enlightenment thinkers differed on one key point: the Reformers never questioned that the text was the word of God.

From the Enlightenment to the present. This favorable attitude toward historical research dwindled over the centuries. In its place authors emphasized the primacy of the text as text, apart from any connection to its origin and history. Literature, it is argued, ultimately operates independently from its author’s intention. All that matters is the text, and it is the reader’s job to understand the text on its own terms, apart from the contingencies surrounding its creation. To that end, interpreters should pay careful attention to the text’s literary features, including its plot structure, characterization, themes, and use of imagery. An interesting example of this hermeneutical dynamic is found in John 19:22, where Pilate asserts, “What I have written, I have written.” Pilate’s words quickly take on significance far beyond their author’s intention, primarily because they are juxtaposed with other themes in John, such as testimony and the kingship of Christ.

More recent approaches have emphasized the role of the reader in the construction of meaning. Interpretation, it is argued, is determined by the interaction between reader and text; readers bring their own presuppositions to the task of interpretation, and such assumptions determine meaning. The author and the historical context of the text will exert some influence, but the primary determinant of meaning is the present reader in his or her present environment. This is not to say that the text “means” whatever a reader wants it to mean; rather, it makes meaning contingent upon the contemporary environment and not subject to anything external to individual readers. On the one hand, readers must“actualize” the text by applying and appropriating it within an environment alien to the original. On the other, readers have the right, and in some cases the responsibility, of undermining the text, particularly if that text assists in the oppression of others.

Elements of an Effective Hermeneutic

An effective hermeneutic requires keeping each of these elements in constant balance with one another. God’s word is truthful and fully trustworthy, yet it is given to his people through individual human authors, authors who wrote in a particular context to a particular audience at a particular time. Understanding the Bible therefore requires knowledge of the purposes of these authors in their specific historical contexts. Nevertheless, our primary access to authorial intention is through the biblical text itself. Finally, understanding always requires personal interaction with, and application of, the text of Scripture to each person’s own life and circumstances. Thus, hermeneutics involves the simultaneous interaction of a variety of perspectives—truth, author, text, and reader—each of which cannot function properly without the others. What follows here is an outline of the most important hermeneutical tools required for such a weighty endeavor.

Linguistics

An appreciation of the nature, structure, and function of language is fundamental to any interpretative endeavor. Obviously, this applies first of all to the specific languages in which the books of the Bible were originally composed. Each language has its own unique vocabulary, grammar, and syntax, and structures available to a writer in one language often are absent in another. Thus, while it is often necessary and acceptable to rely on translations (Neh. 7:73–8:12), readers should be aware that translation itself involves a degree of unavoidable interpretation.

A more general analysis of language is also useful. Understanding the typical patterns by which authors will string sentences together is necessary for following a writing’s train of thought. This tool, called “discourse analysis,” operates above the sentence level, attempting to understand and explain how sentences function in conjunction with one another in order to produce meaningful paragraphs, and how those paragraphs in turn operate within the overarching purpose of the discourse. These patterns of discourse can vary on the basis of book, author, language, culture, and literary genre, but there are also features of effective discourse common to all communication. Thus, while the principles and rules of communication are often intuitively grasped, understanding language, both generally and specifically, is foundational to the task of interpretation.

Literature and Literary Theory

The biblical writers are concerned not only with the informational content of their writing, but also with the manner in which that content is communicated. The words, patterns of speech, style, and imagery of any text provide significant insight into its purpose and message, apart from that text’s specific propositional content. The diversity of language used in the Gospels provides an example of this. Each of the four Gospel authors has a slightly different concern in his writing. John’s purpose, “that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31), explains his frequent use of courtroom language, such as “testimony” and “witness” (e.g., John 21:24). Mark, by contrast, sweeps the reader along a fast-paced and intensely personal exposition of Jesus’ life and death through the terseness and immediacy of his narration. Attention to these literary details allows the reader to more fully participate in the world of the text.

Such decisions will often depend upon a thorough analysis of genre. A reader naturally interprets historical narrative differently from poetry and didactic material. Furthermore, the conventions of different genres change over time. The book of Acts, for example, despite its essentially historical character, does not appear concerned with recording an exact dictation of the many speeches it reports, despite modern expectations that historical writing should be as precise as possible. The classification of ancient genres and the description of their respective conventions therefore require a good deal of analysis and sensitivity, but often such insights are provided by a careful and open reading of the text.

History

As the product of a particular author at a particular time, each book of the Bible is situated within its own unique historical context. Paul, for example, while perhaps conscious of the importance of his letters for posterity, wrote to specific churches or individuals with a singular purpose. This particularity of author, audience, and circumstance can often cause interpretative problems. Thus, while background studies are not always necessary to get the general idea of the author’s message, they can be invaluable in protecting readers from anachronism and enabling them to better appreciate the author’s purpose and perspective.

Historical study is assisted by specialized disciplines. Archaeology, for example, focuses on the beliefs, habits, practices, and history of ancient cultures, harnessing a wealth of evidence to that end. Similarly, anthropology and other social sciences are able to explore facets of modern cultures in order to better assess cross-cultural presuppositions and behaviors, many of which provide insight into ancient civilizations that shared similar attitudes. These methods provide the reader with the information necessary to understand a text in terms consistent with its cultural backdrop, highlighting both the similarities and the differences between the Bible and its environment. Recent discoveries of ancient Hittite treaties, for example, shed light on the “cutting ceremony” recorded in Gen. 15. These treaties detail similar ceremonies in which the vassal of a king would walk between hewed animal carcasses as a symbol of allegiance; if disobedience occurred, the vassal would share the fate of the animals. A similar ceremony occurs in Genesis, but with an interesting twist at the end: God, not Abram, passes through the pieces (15:17).

Humility and the Attitude of the Reader

Careful attention in interpretation requires a great deal of humility. It is difficult to overstate the importance of the attitude of the reader for an effective hermeneutic. Being a good reader requires willingness to share and participate in the world of the author and the text, a willingness that postpones judgment and expects personal change. This, in turn, requires a spirit of self-criticism, a commitment to defer one’s own presuppositions in favor of those of the text. Although readers are never able to fully distance themselves from their cultural situation and assumptions, the study of hermeneutics, among other things, can provide tools and skills for self-criticism and self-awareness, skills that enable the reader to better understand, appreciate, and appropriate the meaning of a text. Even a peripheral understanding of the complexities of interpretation can help readers develop an attitude of humility, imagination, and expectation as they approach the Scriptures.

Such humility is a prerequisite for application. The depth of meaning embedded in any text, and especially within the Bible, provides the humble reader with a rich and powerful tool for personal growth. Having better understood the world of the text on its own terms, readers are able to “project” that world onto themselves and their environment, to appropriate its meaning in a new and possibly foreign context. Thus, Jesus promises that those who hear, understand, and put his word into practice will yield a crop “some thirty, some sixty, some a hundred times what was sown” (Mark 4:20).

Unique Features of Biblical Interpretation

Certain unique features of the biblical text can create special opportunities and challenges for the Christian interpreter. These challenges are at work in the Bible’s own interpretation of itself. The Bible was written by many different authors over the course of a long period of history; it is therefore not surprising to find later authors reflecting on earlier periods. This innerbiblical interpretation offers the Christian insights into the unique nature of biblical hermeneutics and therefore provides a foundational model in approaching the Bible as the word of God.

The common and preeminent assumption that grounds innerbiblical interpretation is the commitment to ultimate divine authorship. Thus, the writer of Hebrews, though affirming the diversity of human authorship in the Bible (1:1), regularly introduces OT quotations with statements such as “God says” (1:5), “he spoke through David” (4:7), and “the Holy Spirit says” (3:7). Other writers tend to prefer the formula “it is written,” but each of these reflects a common presupposition that the Scriptures are ultimately delivered by God (2 Pet. 1:21).

Divine authorship means, at the very least, that there is a depth of meaning and purpose to the text, a depth often hidden even from the human author (1 Pet. 1:10–12). Psalm 2, for example, probably originally served as a coronation hymn used to celebrate the appointment of a new king in Israel. Yet the NT understands this psalm as a prophecy fulfilled in the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Acts 13:33; Heb. 5:5). The intention of the original speaker can even be at odds with God’s intention, such as when Caiaphas claims, “It is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish” (John 11:50; cf. Acts 5:35–39). In this case, the irony of Caiaphas’s statement creates a powerful testimony, contrary to his intent, and is used by John to promote confidence in Jesus.

Furthermore, because the Scriptures are from God, they have a consistent and central focus. The NT unhesitatingly views all of Scripture, in all its diversity, as focused, by virtue of divine inspiration, on the person and work of Jesus Christ. This is seen in, for example, Luke 24:13–35, where the resurrected Jesus, “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” explains to his disciples “what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself” (cf. John 5:39; 12:41). This central focus on Christ requires the Christian interpreter to understand any individual verse in light of its context within the canon, to operate with the same assumption as the NT apostles, that all the Scriptures are concerned with testifying to Jesus the Christ.

Additionally, Paul views both Testaments as the special possession and once-for-all foundation of God’s church (Eph. 2:19–20; cf. Acts 2:42). The church, from a NT perspective, is the primary audience of the entirety of Scripture (1 Pet. 1:12) and is therefore uniquely entrusted with understanding and proclaiming its message (Matt. 28:18–20). While the Scriptures themselves are the only infallible guide for interpretation, believers should not forsake the teaching and tradition of the church (2 Thess. 2:15).

Finally, full understanding of the Bible requires the work of the Holy Spirit in conjunction with the faith of the reader. Belief and understanding go together (John 10:38), and both are the result of the unique work of the Holy Spirit (16:13). The proof that such understanding has taken place is the godly life of the believer (Rom. 2:13; James 1:22–25). The reverse is also true: disobedience works against understanding the riches of God’s Word (James 1:21). Such considerations underline the importance of the hermeneutical task. The tools and principles of hermeneutics are valuable only insofar as they enable the reader to better understand and appropriate the biblical message, to hear the word of God and respond appropriately.

The blossoms of seed-bearing plants that contain the plant’s reproductive organs. Used generally, “flowers” refers to the colorful array of blossoms that grew mostly in the open fields of the Holy Land. Numerous kinds of wild flowers could be found in the plains and mountains of Palestine. When winter rains were followed by the moderate temperatures of spring, renewal abounded (Song 2:11–12). Early spring blossoms presented an array of vibrant color and form. As early as January, cyclamen poured forth pink, white, and lilac blossoms, followed by various shades of red and pink of the crown anemones, poppies, and mountain tulips. The flowers of the diverse tuberous plants of the lily family also added to the colorful mosaic. Summer brought fields of chamomile and chrysanthemums, with their yellow and white daisylike flowers. The blossoms from plants such as mints, mustards, and other native herbaceous plants, along with those of flowering trees, shrubs, and field flowers, provided ample nectar for bees in the land of milk and honey (Num. 13:27). Healing or soothing ointments and various perfumes were produced from the essential oils extracted from the crushing of blossoms from a variety of flowers.

Flower Imagery

Traditionally, the language of flowers functions to illustrate some prominent themes, such as love and beauty. Flower imagery in descriptions of the tabernacle, of Solomon’s temple, and in the Song of Solomon develops the themes of beauty, purity, sweetness, and love (Song 2:1–5; 5:13; Isa. 28:4). The Song of Solomon is set in a garden scene where the sensuous quality of flowers—their colors, shapes, and scents, their delicate touch—are analogous to the captivating sexuality of physical love. The spring setting assures that the flowers are at their pinnacle of brilliance and the air is filled with the fragrance of vine blossoms (Song 2:12–13).

Used metaphorically, flowers can also refer to transience, pride, restoration, and the glory of the holy and eternal. Such references are found in both Testaments. The short life of flowers is representative of the brevity and fragility of human life on earth (Job 14:2; Ps. 103:15; Isa. 40:6–8; 1 Pet. 1:24). After a brief moment of splendor, decline and decay are close behind. Such is the metaphor used in psalms, by the prophets, and in the NT for the life of a person who flourishes like the flower, is like the grass one day, but is gone the next day.

As surely as flower imagery points out our human mortality, it also serves to illustrate the judgment of the proud or ungodly, as when Isaiah prophesies the speedy downfall of the kingdom of Israel like flowers being trampled under-foot (Isa. 28:1–3), turned to dust (5:24), or cut off with pruning knives (18:5). Nahum sees God’s power to rebuke his enemies in his ability to dry up seas and rivers and to make the many flowers of Carmel and Lebanon wilt (Nah. 1:4). James applies the flower imagery to describe the sudden departure of the rich person, passing away as quickly as the flowers of the field, whose beauty perishes under the burning heat of the sun (James 1:10–11).

The usual contexts of this flower imagery are judgment on the proud and the wicked, whose deeds will be short-lived. The insignificant and contemptible deeds of the wicked are contrasted with God’s power; our human transience and frailty with God’s permanence (Ps. 103:15); and our human weakness with the eternal word of God (Isa. 40:6, 8; 1 Pet. 1:24–25).

The flower can also represent a blessing. The righteous are compared to the flowering or flourishing of a plant (Isa. 5:24; 18:5; 28:1–4), since the flowering of a plant represents the peak of its life process, its most glorious moment. This beautifully pictures the restoration themes of the prophets as they utilize flower imagery. Isaiah’s words “The desert and the parched land will be glad; the wilderness will rejoice and blossom. Like the crocus, it will burst into bloom; it will rejoice greatly and shout for joy” (Isa. 35:1–2; cf. 27:6) are one example of God’s restorative ability to turn a wasteland into a garden. Hosea illustrates this theme: “I will be like the dew to Israel; he will blossom like a lily. Like a cedar of Lebanon he will send down his roots” (Hos. 14:5). The psalmists also sing of the righteous, not the wicked, flourishing like grass or the flower (Pss. 72:7, 16; 92:12–14). Proverbs too reminds us that the righteous will “flourish,” or break forth and sprout like foliage (Prov. 14:11).

Flowers Named in the Bible

The Bible often identifies flowering plants by a more generic name rather than mentioning specific flowers. Sometimes context can help in determining more specific species. According to 1 Kings 7:19–20, 26, lily blossoms, along with pomegranates, adorned the top of the bronze columns that stood before King Solomon’s temple. In a musical aspect, three psalms are identified as those to be sung to the tune “Lilies” (Pss. 45; 69; 80).

The most frequently mentioned specific flowers are traditionally translated “lily” and “rose” (though these are probably not accurate renderings since these flowers are not native to the region and so would have been unfamiliar to most readers). Many commentators believe that the phrase “lilies of the field” referred to the showy, attractive springtime flowers that grow profusely in the plains, pastures, and hills of the Carmel and Sharon regions. These flowers can include ranunculus, anemone, cyclamen, tulip, hyacinth, narcissus, crocus, iris, and orchid. The tulip, asphodel, star-of-Bethlehem, hyacinth, and related narcissus, daffodil, crocus, and iris inhabit the rocky ground and dry places of the hill country. The “lily of the valleys” of Song 2:1–2 is probably the blue hyacinth.

Consider Jesus’ words “Observe how the lilies of the field grow; they do not toil nor do they spin, yet I say to you that not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these” (Matt. 6:28–29 NASB). Although these flowers may not be true lilies but rather one of the numerous showy spring flowers such as the crown anemone, Jesus proclaims that the beauty of a single flower in a meadow was more striking than all the riches of Solomon, and that the flower did not concern itself with working and getting riches to be clothed. Jesus’ comments about flowers demonstrate that their beauty was appreciated in Israel.

The flowers listed below are specifically named in various Bible versions.

Almond blossoms. The almond tree is among the first of flowering trees to bloom in the spring. Almond blossoms were part of the almond-tree design on the seven-branched lampstands of the tabernacle (Exod. 25:33–34; 37:19–20). In Eccles. 12:5, almond tree blossoms are likely an allegorical reference to an elderly person’s hair turning white like the almond tree.

Camphire flower. In Song 1:14; 4:13, the KJV refers to camphire, while the NIV and most modern versions have “henna.” The camphire is a small plant or shrub that bears highly scented, cream-colored flowers that hang in clusters and were used for orange dye.

Caperberry flower. The caperberry was a common prickly shrub with large, white flowers that produced small, edible berries. The berries had a reputation for exciting sexual desire, so the caperberry is used in Eccles. 12:5 to allude to the waning sexual potency that comes with age (NIV: “desire is no longer stirred”).

Cockle flower. The KJV of Job 31:40 refers to a “cockle” (NIV: “stinkweed”), a plant whose name is spelled like the Hebrew word for “stink.” This noxious weed with purplish red flowers grew abundantly in Palestinian grain fields.

Crocus. A plant with a long yellow floral tube tinged with purple specks or stripes. The abundant blossoms of the crocus symbolize beauty and splendor (Isa. 35:1).

Fitch. Named in the KJV at Isa. 28:25, 27 (NIV: “caraway”; NRSV: “dill”) and Ezek. 4:9 (NIV: “spelt”). The flower referred to is probably the nutmeg flower, which is a member of the buttercup family; it grew wild in most Mediterranean lands. The plant is about two feet high, with bright blue flowers. The pods of the plant were used like pepper.

Lily. A symbol of fruitfulness, purity, and resurrection, this plant grows from a bulb to a height of three feet, with large white flowers. The term “lily” covers a wide range of flowers. The lily mentioned in Song 5:13 refers to a rare variety of lily that had a bloom similar to a glowing flame. The “lily of the valleys” (Song 2:1) is known as the Easter lily. The lily mentioned in Hos. 14:5 is more like an iris. The water lily or lotus was a favorite flower in Egypt and was used to decorate Solomon’s temple (1 Kings 7:19, 22, 26; 2 Chron. 4:5). The “lilies of the field” (Matt. 6:28) probably were numerous kinds of colorful spring flowers such as the crown anemone (see NIV: “flowers of the field”).

Mint. This aromatic plant, with hairy leaves, has dense white or pink flowers. It is listed with other spices and herbs as something that the Pharisees tithe (Matt. 23:23; Luke 11:42).

Myrtle branch. This bush has fragrant evergreen leaves. Its scented white flowers were used for perfumes. The bush grew to considerable height (Zech. 1:8, 10) and is listed among the trees used to build shelters during the Feast of Tabernacles (Neh. 8:15; see also Isa. 41:19; 55:13).

Pomegranate blossom. The blossom of the pomegranate tree is large and orange-red in color. The fruit of the tree was a symbol of fertile and productive land (Num. 13:23; Deut. 8:8; cf. Hag. 2:19) and was used to produce spiced wine (Song 8:2). Pomegranates were part of the decoration that adorned Aaron’s garments (Exod. 28:33–34) and the temple of Solomon (1 Kings 7:18–20).

Rose. The Hebrew word translated as “rose” in Song 2:1 is translated as “crocus” in Isa. 35:1. Crocus was probably the family name of this flower.

Saffron. This is a species of crocus. Petals of the saffron were used to perfume banquet halls (cf. Song 4:14).

A biblical genealogy is a listing of names showing the interrelationships of individuals, clans, or nations. They are found mainly, though not exclusively, in the Pentateuch, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles. The arrangement of names in such listings is most often forward in time, from ancestor to descendant (e.g., Ruth 4:18–22, tracing a family line down to David), and this is the genealogy proper. At other times, names are listed in the opposite direction, backward in time, from the individual to ancestor (e.g., Ezra 7:1–5, where Ezra’s ancestry is traced back to Aaron “the chief priest”), and this is, strictly speaking, a pedigree. The unusually lengthy pedigree (even by biblical standards) of Ezra “the priest” is an effective way to highlight his temple interest when he is first introduced to the reader. The pedigree of 1 Chron. 6:33–47 shows the impeccable Levitical credentials of Heman, Asaph, and Ethan, who served before the ark of the covenant under the leadership of David. Genealogical information is always supplied for a reason.

Types of Genealogies

The two main terms used in the OT are toledot (“genealogical history”; e.g., Gen. 2:4; 5:1; 6:9; NIV: “account”) and yakhas (“genealogical record”; only in Neh. 7:5, but the related verb, “to register by genealogy,” occurs in Ezra 2 // Neh. 7 and elsewhere). In Ezra-Nehemiah the supplying of a credible genealogy is necessary for acceptance as an Israelite (Ezra 2:59–60) or for securing priestly privileges (Ezra 2:61–63). The concern is not racial purity as such, but rather Israel’s theological integrity (Ezra 9:1–2). The pejorative references to “genealogies” in 1 Tim. 1:4 and Titus 3:9 do not condemn the OT lists but instead reject the concocted genealogies in the mythic speculations of Jewish intertestamental books such as Jubilees.

Lineage is almost invariably traced through the male line. Most often in biblical narrative an individual is supplied only with a patronym (e.g., “Isaiah son of Amoz” [Isa. 1:1]), or sometimes three generations are specified (e.g., “Bezalel son of Uri, the son of Hur” [Exod. 35:30]). In Exod. 6:16–20 the foreshortened genealogy of Aaron and Moses is not to be understood as saying that there were only four generations between them and Levi.

Some genealogies involve ethnic and geographical relations—for example, between the nations of the ancient world in Gen. 11, and between Israel and surrounding peoples in Gen. 19:37–38; 25:1–4. In lists, the father-son relation can be broader than immediate descent and may refer to remote ancestors (grandson, great-grandson, etc.) (e.g., Ezra 5:1; cf. Zech. 1:1).

The Importance of Genealogies

Genealogies are an important feature of biblical storytelling. The modern reader should not simply leap over them, and the works of J. R. R. Tolkien show that genealogy is not dead in literary terms. When a biblical genealogy is supplied, it has a narratorial role. It contributes something essential to the presentation of the biblical writer. For example, 1 Chron. 1 is not a bare listing of names but rather, beginning with Adam, provides a world context for the history of Israel that follows; and 1 Chron. 2–9 emphasizes the twelve-tribal structure of God’s people, thus preventing the misapprehension that Chronicles is just a history of the southern kingdom of Judah. Also, lists are usually not just names; they include thematically significant material contributing to the overall message of the particular book—for example, the technological advances of Cain’s descendants told in Gen. 4:17–22 and the military exploits recounted in 1 Chron. 5:18–22.

The ten-generation genealogy of Gen. 5 bridges the antediluvian and the deluge eras. The repeated refrain “and he died” depicts the reign of death over the human race. Another ten-generation genealogy joins the flood generation to Abram (Gen. 11:10–26). In this case, the deleterious effect of sin on humans is shown by the gradual decrease in human life span. There is often an element of schema in biblical genealogies (e.g., the limitation of generations to ten). Genesis 5 displays the convention of the seventh generation, which is deemed worthy of special attention (Enoch). There is also the Bible’s delight in multiples of seven—for example, the seventy nations in Gen. 10, the 3 × 14 generational schema in Matt. 1, and the seventy members in the pedigree of Christ in Luke 3:23–38. Hence, none of these genealogies should be understood as comprehensive in scope; rather, they are highly selective and stylized. Their purpose is to support and underscore the writer’s theological message.

Because it is rare for females to be mentioned in biblical genealogies, when they are there is special significance—for example, Sarai in Gen. 11:29: though barren, she will become the mother of the line of promise; Rebekah in Gen. 22:23: she will become the wife of Isaac; the daughters of Zelophehad in Num. 26:33: their story will be elaborated in Num. 27; 36; the five women in the genealogy of Jesus (Matt. 1): several of them are non-Israelites, suggesting that Jesus comes as the Savior of the world.

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

(1) The second son of Simeon (Gen. 46:10; Exod. 6:15; 1 Chron. 4:24) and a grandson of Jacob, he is also the ancestor of the Jaminite clan (Num. 26:12). (2) The second son of Ram and a grandson of Jerahmeel of Judah (1 Chron. 2:27). (3) One of the thirteen Levites who read and interpreted the law so that the people could understand after Ezra read it (Neh. 8:7–8). It is debated whether they simply explained the law or translated it from Hebrew into Aramaic. For example, in Neh. 8:8 the NIV text has these Levites “making it [the Book of the Law] clear,” while the NIV margin has them “translating” it.

(1) A royal official who, with Jeho-za-bad, assassinated King Joash of Judah (2 Kings 12:21). (See also Jozacar, Jozachar.) (2) From Ge-de-rah, he was one of the Benjamite soldiers who joined David at Ziklag (1 Chron. 12:4). (3) Two warriors of Manasseh described as leaders of units of a thousand soldiers (1 Chron. 12:20). They defended David against bands of raiders. (4) A Levite appointed by King Hezekiah who helped keep tally of the offerings given for the work of the temple (2 Chron. 31:13). (5) A leading Levite who donated offerings to King Josiah for the Passover celebration (2 Chron. 35:9). (6) A descendant of Pashhur guilty of intermarriage (Ezra 10:22). (7) The son of Jeshua, he was a Levite who helped make an inventory of the freewill offerings brought by Ezra from Babylon for the temple (Ezra 8:33). (8) A Levite guilty of intermarriage (Ezra 10:23). (9) One of the thirteen Levites who helped interpret and teach while Ezra read from the Book of the Law of God to the returned exiles (Neh. 8:7). (10) A prominent Levite who helped supervise the rebuilding of the temple after the exile (Neh. 11:16). He may be the same individual as in Neh. 8:7.

The public space in a town set up for commerce and public gatherings; also, a region renowned for its trade. Ancient Palestinian towns conducted business at the city gate, including the marshaling of troops (2 Chron. 32:6) and holding of religious assemblies (Neh. 8:1). The Phoenician seaport of Tyre was labeled the “marketplace of the nations” (Isa. 23:3), where numerous goods, such as metalwork, ivory, fine fabrics, spices, and livestock, were exchanged with neighboring nations (Ezek. 27:12–23).

By NT times, Herod the Great had rebuilt many Palestinian cities with a central Greek-style marketplace, or agora, where children played (Matt. 11:16; Luke 7:32), day laborers gathered (Matt. 20:3), and religious leaders networked (Matt. 23:7; Mark 7:4; 12:38; Luke 11:43; 20:46). In the smaller Galilean villages, Jesus healed sick people in the marketplaces (Mark 6:56). Paul suffered hostile magistrates and mobs in the Greek marketplaces of Philippi and Thessalonica (Acts 16:19; 17:5), while in Athens the marketplace was his venue for preaching to the public and curious philosophers (Acts 17:17–18). Jesus berated the sellers in the Jerusalem temple courts for imitating a marketplace (John 2:16), and Paul assured the Corinthians that they may eat meat of unknown provenance sold in the marketplace (1 Cor. 10:25).

(1) An ancestor of the musician Asaph (1 Chron. 6:40). (2) A descendant of Aaron, he was the leader of a priestly division during David’s reign (1 Chron. 24:9). (3) The ancestor of Pashhur, who came to Jeremiah with a request from King Zedekiah (Jer. 21:1). (4) An ancestor of Adaiah, who returned to Jerusalem after the exile (1 Chron. 9:12; Neh. 11:12). (5) A descendant of Parosh, he sent away his foreign wife during Ezra’s reforms (Ezra 10:25). (6) A descendant of Harim, he sent away his foreign wife during Ezra’s reforms (Ezra 10:31). (7) The son of Harim, he repaired a section of the Jerusalem wall and the Tower of the Ovens (Neh. 3:11). (8) The son of Rekab, ruler of the district of Beth Hakkerem, he repaired the Dung Gate of the Jerusalem wall (Neh. 3:14). (9) One of the goldsmiths who repaired part of the Jerusalem wall (Neh. 3:31). (10) One of the leaders who stood with Ezra when he read the law of Moses to the people (Neh. 8:4). (11) A priest who signed Ezra’s covenant after the exile (Neh. 10:3). (12) A priest who sang during the dedication of the wall (Neh. 12:42). Some of these references may speak of the same person.

Descended from Ephraim, Nun was the father of Joshua, the successor of Moses (Exod. 33:11; Neh. 8:17).

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 blossoms of seed-bearing plants that contain the plant’s reproductive organs. Used generally, “flowers” refers to the colorful array of blossoms that grew mostly in the open fields of the Holy Land. Numerous kinds of wild flowers could be found in the plains and mountains of Palestine. When winter rains were followed by the moderate temperatures of spring, renewal abounded (Song 2:11–12). Early spring blossoms presented an array of vibrant color and form. As early as January, cyclamen poured forth pink, white, and lilac blossoms, followed by various shades of red and pink of the crown anemones, poppies, and mountain tulips. The flowers of the diverse tuberous plants of the lily family also added to the colorful mosaic. Summer brought fields of chamomile and chrysanthemums, with their yellow and white daisylike flowers. The blossoms from plants such as mints, mustards, and other native herbaceous plants, along with those of flowering trees, shrubs, and field flowers, provided ample nectar for bees in the land of milk and honey (Num. 13:27). Healing or soothing ointments and various perfumes were produced from the essential oils extracted from the crushing of blossoms from a variety of flowers.

Flower Imagery

Traditionally, the language of flowers functions to illustrate some prominent themes, such as love and beauty. Flower imagery in descriptions of the tabernacle, of Solomon’s temple, and in the Song of Solomon develops the themes of beauty, purity, sweetness, and love (Song 2:1–5; 5:13; Isa. 28:4). The Song of Solomon is set in a garden scene where the sensuous quality of flowers—their colors, shapes, and scents, their delicate touch—are analogous to the captivating sexuality of physical love. The spring setting assures that the flowers are at their pinnacle of brilliance and the air is filled with the fragrance of vine blossoms (Song 2:12–13).

Used metaphorically, flowers can also refer to transience, pride, restoration, and the glory of the holy and eternal. Such references are found in both Testaments. The short life of flowers is representative of the brevity and fragility of human life on earth (Job 14:2; Ps. 103:15; Isa. 40:6–8; 1 Pet. 1:24). After a brief moment of splendor, decline and decay are close behind. Such is the metaphor used in psalms, by the prophets, and in the NT for the life of a person who flourishes like the flower, is like the grass one day, but is gone the next day.

As surely as flower imagery points out our human mortality, it also serves to illustrate the judgment of the proud or ungodly, as when Isaiah prophesies the speedy downfall of the kingdom of Israel like flowers being trampled under-foot (Isa. 28:1–3), turned to dust (5:24), or cut off with pruning knives (18:5). Nahum sees God’s power to rebuke his enemies in his ability to dry up seas and rivers and to make the many flowers of Carmel and Lebanon wilt (Nah. 1:4). James applies the flower imagery to describe the sudden departure of the rich person, passing away as quickly as the flowers of the field, whose beauty perishes under the burning heat of the sun (James 1:10–11).

The usual contexts of this flower imagery are judgment on the proud and the wicked, whose deeds will be short-lived. The insignificant and contemptible deeds of the wicked are contrasted with God’s power; our human transience and frailty with God’s permanence (Ps. 103:15); and our human weakness with the eternal word of God (Isa. 40:6, 8; 1 Pet. 1:24–25).

The flower can also represent a blessing. The righteous are compared to the flowering or flourishing of a plant (Isa. 5:24; 18:5; 28:1–4), since the flowering of a plant represents the peak of its life process, its most glorious moment. This beautifully pictures the restoration themes of the prophets as they utilize flower imagery. Isaiah’s words “The desert and the parched land will be glad; the wilderness will rejoice and blossom. Like the crocus, it will burst into bloom; it will rejoice greatly and shout for joy” (Isa. 35:1–2; cf. 27:6) are one example of God’s restorative ability to turn a wasteland into a garden. Hosea illustrates this theme: “I will be like the dew to Israel; he will blossom like a lily. Like a cedar of Lebanon he will send down his roots” (Hos. 14:5). The psalmists also sing of the righteous, not the wicked, flourishing like grass or the flower (Pss. 72:7, 16; 92:12–14). Proverbs too reminds us that the righteous will “flourish,” or break forth and sprout like foliage (Prov. 14:11).

Flowers Named in the Bible

The Bible often identifies flowering plants by a more generic name rather than mentioning specific flowers. Sometimes context can help in determining more specific species. According to 1 Kings 7:19–20, 26, lily blossoms, along with pomegranates, adorned the top of the bronze columns that stood before King Solomon’s temple. In a musical aspect, three psalms are identified as those to be sung to the tune “Lilies” (Pss. 45; 69; 80).

The most frequently mentioned specific flowers are traditionally translated “lily” and “rose” (though these are probably not accurate renderings since these flowers are not native to the region and so would have been unfamiliar to most readers). Many commentators believe that the phrase “lilies of the field” referred to the showy, attractive springtime flowers that grow profusely in the plains, pastures, and hills of the Carmel and Sharon regions. These flowers can include ranunculus, anemone, cyclamen, tulip, hyacinth, narcissus, crocus, iris, and orchid. The tulip, asphodel, star-of-Bethlehem, hyacinth, and related narcissus, daffodil, crocus, and iris inhabit the rocky ground and dry places of the hill country. The “lily of the valleys” of Song 2:1–2 is probably the blue hyacinth.

Consider Jesus’ words “Observe how the lilies of the field grow; they do not toil nor do they spin, yet I say to you that not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these” (Matt. 6:28–29 NASB). Although these flowers may not be true lilies but rather one of the numerous showy spring flowers such as the crown anemone, Jesus proclaims that the beauty of a single flower in a meadow was more striking than all the riches of Solomon, and that the flower did not concern itself with working and getting riches to be clothed. Jesus’ comments about flowers demonstrate that their beauty was appreciated in Israel.

The flowers listed below are specifically named in various Bible versions.

Almond blossoms. The almond tree is among the first of flowering trees to bloom in the spring. Almond blossoms were part of the almond-tree design on the seven-branched lampstands of the tabernacle (Exod. 25:33–34; 37:19–20). In Eccles. 12:5, almond tree blossoms are likely an allegorical reference to an elderly person’s hair turning white like the almond tree.

Camphire flower. In Song 1:14; 4:13, the KJV refers to camphire, while the NIV and most modern versions have “henna.” The camphire is a small plant or shrub that bears highly scented, cream-colored flowers that hang in clusters and were used for orange dye.

Caperberry flower. The caperberry was a common prickly shrub with large, white flowers that produced small, edible berries. The berries had a reputation for exciting sexual desire, so the caperberry is used in Eccles. 12:5 to allude to the waning sexual potency that comes with age (NIV: “desire is no longer stirred”).

Cockle flower. The KJV of Job 31:40 refers to a “cockle” (NIV: “stinkweed”), a plant whose name is spelled like the Hebrew word for “stink.” This noxious weed with purplish red flowers grew abundantly in Palestinian grain fields.

Crocus. A plant with a long yellow floral tube tinged with purple specks or stripes. The abundant blossoms of the crocus symbolize beauty and splendor (Isa. 35:1).

Fitch. Named in the KJV at Isa. 28:25, 27 (NIV: “caraway”; NRSV: “dill”) and Ezek. 4:9 (NIV: “spelt”). The flower referred to is probably the nutmeg flower, which is a member of the buttercup family; it grew wild in most Mediterranean lands. The plant is about two feet high, with bright blue flowers. The pods of the plant were used like pepper.

Lily. A symbol of fruitfulness, purity, and resurrection, this plant grows from a bulb to a height of three feet, with large white flowers. The term “lily” covers a wide range of flowers. The lily mentioned in Song 5:13 refers to a rare variety of lily that had a bloom similar to a glowing flame. The “lily of the valleys” (Song 2:1) is known as the Easter lily. The lily mentioned in Hos. 14:5 is more like an iris. The water lily or lotus was a favorite flower in Egypt and was used to decorate Solomon’s temple (1 Kings 7:19, 22, 26; 2 Chron. 4:5). The “lilies of the field” (Matt. 6:28) probably were numerous kinds of colorful spring flowers such as the crown anemone (see NIV: “flowers of the field”).

Mint. This aromatic plant, with hairy leaves, has dense white or pink flowers. It is listed with other spices and herbs as something that the Pharisees tithe (Matt. 23:23; Luke 11:42).

Myrtle branch. This bush has fragrant evergreen leaves. Its scented white flowers were used for perfumes. The bush grew to considerable height (Zech. 1:8, 10) and is listed among the trees used to build shelters during the Feast of Tabernacles (Neh. 8:15; see also Isa. 41:19; 55:13).

Pomegranate blossom. The blossom of the pomegranate tree is large and orange-red in color. The fruit of the tree was a symbol of fertile and productive land (Num. 13:23; Deut. 8:8; cf. Hag. 2:19) and was used to produce spiced wine (Song 8:2). Pomegranates were part of the decoration that adorned Aaron’s garments (Exod. 28:33–34) and the temple of Solomon (1 Kings 7:18–20).

Rose. The Hebrew word translated as “rose” in Song 2:1 is translated as “crocus” in Isa. 35:1. Crocus was probably the family name of this flower.

Saffron. This is a species of crocus. Petals of the saffron were used to perfume banquet halls (cf. Song 4:14).

The blossoms of seed-bearing plants that contain the plant’s reproductive organs. Used generally, “flowers” refers to the colorful array of blossoms that grew mostly in the open fields of the Holy Land. Numerous kinds of wild flowers could be found in the plains and mountains of Palestine. When winter rains were followed by the moderate temperatures of spring, renewal abounded (Song 2:11–12). Early spring blossoms presented an array of vibrant color and form. As early as January, cyclamen poured forth pink, white, and lilac blossoms, followed by various shades of red and pink of the crown anemones, poppies, and mountain tulips. The flowers of the diverse tuberous plants of the lily family also added to the colorful mosaic. Summer brought fields of chamomile and chrysanthemums, with their yellow and white daisylike flowers. The blossoms from plants such as mints, mustards, and other native herbaceous plants, along with those of flowering trees, shrubs, and field flowers, provided ample nectar for bees in the land of milk and honey (Num. 13:27). Healing or soothing ointments and various perfumes were produced from the essential oils extracted from the crushing of blossoms from a variety of flowers.

Flower Imagery

Traditionally, the language of flowers functions to illustrate some prominent themes, such as love and beauty. Flower imagery in descriptions of the tabernacle, of Solomon’s temple, and in the Song of Solomon develops the themes of beauty, purity, sweetness, and love (Song 2:1–5; 5:13; Isa. 28:4). The Song of Solomon is set in a garden scene where the sensuous quality of flowers—their colors, shapes, and scents, their delicate touch—are analogous to the captivating sexuality of physical love. The spring setting assures that the flowers are at their pinnacle of brilliance and the air is filled with the fragrance of vine blossoms (Song 2:12–13).

Used metaphorically, flowers can also refer to transience, pride, restoration, and the glory of the holy and eternal. Such references are found in both Testaments. The short life of flowers is representative of the brevity and fragility of human life on earth (Job 14:2; Ps. 103:15; Isa. 40:6–8; 1 Pet. 1:24). After a brief moment of splendor, decline and decay are close behind. Such is the metaphor used in psalms, by the prophets, and in the NT for the life of a person who flourishes like the flower, is like the grass one day, but is gone the next day.

As surely as flower imagery points out our human mortality, it also serves to illustrate the judgment of the proud or ungodly, as when Isaiah prophesies the speedy downfall of the kingdom of Israel like flowers being trampled under-foot (Isa. 28:1–3), turned to dust (5:24), or cut off with pruning knives (18:5). Nahum sees God’s power to rebuke his enemies in his ability to dry up seas and rivers and to make the many flowers of Carmel and Lebanon wilt (Nah. 1:4). James applies the flower imagery to describe the sudden departure of the rich person, passing away as quickly as the flowers of the field, whose beauty perishes under the burning heat of the sun (James 1:10–11).

The usual contexts of this flower imagery are judgment on the proud and the wicked, whose deeds will be short-lived. The insignificant and contemptible deeds of the wicked are contrasted with God’s power; our human transience and frailty with God’s permanence (Ps. 103:15); and our human weakness with the eternal word of God (Isa. 40:6, 8; 1 Pet. 1:24–25).

The flower can also represent a blessing. The righteous are compared to the flowering or flourishing of a plant (Isa. 5:24; 18:5; 28:1–4), since the flowering of a plant represents the peak of its life process, its most glorious moment. This beautifully pictures the restoration themes of the prophets as they utilize flower imagery. Isaiah’s words “The desert and the parched land will be glad; the wilderness will rejoice and blossom. Like the crocus, it will burst into bloom; it will rejoice greatly and shout for joy” (Isa. 35:1–2; cf. 27:6) are one example of God’s restorative ability to turn a wasteland into a garden. Hosea illustrates this theme: “I will be like the dew to Israel; he will blossom like a lily. Like a cedar of Lebanon he will send down his roots” (Hos. 14:5). The psalmists also sing of the righteous, not the wicked, flourishing like grass or the flower (Pss. 72:7, 16; 92:12–14). Proverbs too reminds us that the righteous will “flourish,” or break forth and sprout like foliage (Prov. 14:11).

Flowers Named in the Bible

The Bible often identifies flowering plants by a more generic name rather than mentioning specific flowers. Sometimes context can help in determining more specific species. According to 1 Kings 7:19–20, 26, lily blossoms, along with pomegranates, adorned the top of the bronze columns that stood before King Solomon’s temple. In a musical aspect, three psalms are identified as those to be sung to the tune “Lilies” (Pss. 45; 69; 80).

The most frequently mentioned specific flowers are traditionally translated “lily” and “rose” (though these are probably not accurate renderings since these flowers are not native to the region and so would have been unfamiliar to most readers). Many commentators believe that the phrase “lilies of the field” referred to the showy, attractive springtime flowers that grow profusely in the plains, pastures, and hills of the Carmel and Sharon regions. These flowers can include ranunculus, anemone, cyclamen, tulip, hyacinth, narcissus, crocus, iris, and orchid. The tulip, asphodel, star-of-Bethlehem, hyacinth, and related narcissus, daffodil, crocus, and iris inhabit the rocky ground and dry places of the hill country. The “lily of the valleys” of Song 2:1–2 is probably the blue hyacinth.

Consider Jesus’ words “Observe how the lilies of the field grow; they do not toil nor do they spin, yet I say to you that not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these” (Matt. 6:28–29 NASB). Although these flowers may not be true lilies but rather one of the numerous showy spring flowers such as the crown anemone, Jesus proclaims that the beauty of a single flower in a meadow was more striking than all the riches of Solomon, and that the flower did not concern itself with working and getting riches to be clothed. Jesus’ comments about flowers demonstrate that their beauty was appreciated in Israel.

The flowers listed below are specifically named in various Bible versions.

Almond blossoms. The almond tree is among the first of flowering trees to bloom in the spring. Almond blossoms were part of the almond-tree design on the seven-branched lampstands of the tabernacle (Exod. 25:33–34; 37:19–20). In Eccles. 12:5, almond tree blossoms are likely an allegorical reference to an elderly person’s hair turning white like the almond tree.

Camphire flower. In Song 1:14; 4:13, the KJV refers to camphire, while the NIV and most modern versions have “henna.” The camphire is a small plant or shrub that bears highly scented, cream-colored flowers that hang in clusters and were used for orange dye.

Caperberry flower. The caperberry was a common prickly shrub with large, white flowers that produced small, edible berries. The berries had a reputation for exciting sexual desire, so the caperberry is used in Eccles. 12:5 to allude to the waning sexual potency that comes with age (NIV: “desire is no longer stirred”).

Cockle flower. The KJV of Job 31:40 refers to a “cockle” (NIV: “stinkweed”), a plant whose name is spelled like the Hebrew word for “stink.” This noxious weed with purplish red flowers grew abundantly in Palestinian grain fields.

Crocus. A plant with a long yellow floral tube tinged with purple specks or stripes. The abundant blossoms of the crocus symbolize beauty and splendor (Isa. 35:1).

Fitch. Named in the KJV at Isa. 28:25, 27 (NIV: “caraway”; NRSV: “dill”) and Ezek. 4:9 (NIV: “spelt”). The flower referred to is probably the nutmeg flower, which is a member of the buttercup family; it grew wild in most Mediterranean lands. The plant is about two feet high, with bright blue flowers. The pods of the plant were used like pepper.

Lily. A symbol of fruitfulness, purity, and resurrection, this plant grows from a bulb to a height of three feet, with large white flowers. The term “lily” covers a wide range of flowers. The lily mentioned in Song 5:13 refers to a rare variety of lily that had a bloom similar to a glowing flame. The “lily of the valleys” (Song 2:1) is known as the Easter lily. The lily mentioned in Hos. 14:5 is more like an iris. The water lily or lotus was a favorite flower in Egypt and was used to decorate Solomon’s temple (1 Kings 7:19, 22, 26; 2 Chron. 4:5). The “lilies of the field” (Matt. 6:28) probably were numerous kinds of colorful spring flowers such as the crown anemone (see NIV: “flowers of the field”).

Mint. This aromatic plant, with hairy leaves, has dense white or pink flowers. It is listed with other spices and herbs as something that the Pharisees tithe (Matt. 23:23; Luke 11:42).

Myrtle branch. This bush has fragrant evergreen leaves. Its scented white flowers were used for perfumes. The bush grew to considerable height (Zech. 1:8, 10) and is listed among the trees used to build shelters during the Feast of Tabernacles (Neh. 8:15; see also Isa. 41:19; 55:13).

Pomegranate blossom. The blossom of the pomegranate tree is large and orange-red in color. The fruit of the tree was a symbol of fertile and productive land (Num. 13:23; Deut. 8:8; cf. Hag. 2:19) and was used to produce spiced wine (Song 8:2). Pomegranates were part of the decoration that adorned Aaron’s garments (Exod. 28:33–34) and the temple of Solomon (1 Kings 7:18–20).

Rose. The Hebrew word translated as “rose” in Song 2:1 is translated as “crocus” in Isa. 35:1. Crocus was probably the family name of this flower.

Saffron. This is a species of crocus. Petals of the saffron were used to perfume banquet halls (cf. Song 4:14).

A transliteration of the Greek word synagōgē, meaning “gathering, assembly, meeting.” In English, the word “synagogue” refers either to a Jewish congregation or to the place where that congregation meets. Synagogues of the biblical era functioned as both religious and civic centers for the Jewish community.

Origins

The origin of synagogues is uncertain. The earliest archaeological evidence is from Egypt in the third century BC, consisting of inscriptions and a papyrus letter. The oldest architectural find is from the island of Delos in the Aegean Sea, although whether this was constructed as a synagogue or redesigned into one is unknown, as is whether it was Jewish or Samaritan. The oldest structures yet found in Israel consist of two rooms at Qumran and the synagogue at Gamla, which date from the late first century BC. In Capernaum, the basalt synagogue was built by a Gentile centurion for the community in the first century AD (Luke 7:1–5).

By that time, synagogues were well attested in Israel, elsewhere in the Roman Empire, and in Egypt (Matt. 4:23; Luke 4:44; Acts 9:2; 17:10, 16–17; 18:8, 19). Synagogues were found wherever there were communities of Jews, in cities and rural areas alike. Especially in Diaspora settings or remote locations, they were the heart of Jewish life. Several hypotheses have been suggested to account for their apparently sudden appearance.

Some believe that synagogues were developed during the Babylonian captivity as the response of the exile community to the destruction of their temple and sacrificial system. Despite these enormous losses, the Jews still had the Torah, and from that point forward worship and prayer based on the reading and studying of the Scriptures, which could be done locally, began to gain ascendancy. Critics of this idea, however, point out that while it makes sense, there is no direct evidence to support it.

Others think that the spread of Hellenism in the second century BC precipitated a crisis of identity among Jews. For example, 1 Maccabees reports with distress that some Jews had abandoned the covenant and teamed with the Hellenists, even going so far as to build a Greek-style gymnasium in Jerusalem (1:11–15). Thus, the thought is that synagogues were a form of resistance to the overwhelming and perversely appealing cultural changes of the day.

More recently, it has been suggested that synagogues were the gradual successors to functions that had previously taken place at city gates. First-century synagogues served a wide range of functions for the community. Throughout Israel’s prior history, however, these same activities—assembly, legal, social, educational, and religious—had taken place at the city gate (Deut. 12:15; 2 Sam. 15:2; 2 Kings 23:8; Neh. 8:1–8). The Gamla synagogue sits against the east city wall next to a probable gate, and its location could be evidence of the slow development of the synagogue as city gates changed from multipurpose facilities to portals of ingress and egress.

First-Century Synagogues

First-century synagogues served as integrated centers supporting Jewish life. Regular communal reading and exposition of Scripture, including teaching and discussion of the law and transmission of its complex associated traditions (Luke 4:16; Acts 13:14–15), occurred there. Although formal liturgical rites evolved after the destruction of the temple in AD 70, synagogues were places of prayer in the first century (Matt. 6:5). Synagogues also served as courtrooms and places where crimes were punished (Acts 22:19), as well as locations for common meals and festivals (see Acts 6:2).

Synagogues were administered by local community leaders, including a president and a board (Acts 13:15). Synagogue leaders named in the NT include Jairus (Mark 5:22; Luke 8:41), Crispus (Acts 18:8), and Sosthenes (Acts 18:17). The role of the leader was to preside over services, to rule as the judge in court cases, to represent the community, and often to act as a patron. The board served in an advisory role and assisted with teaching. A scribe maintained community records and taught.

Congregations included Pharisees, who advocated strict adherence to the law, although they were chided by Jesus for their false piety (Luke 11:42–44). Women participated in the synagogue along with the men, and in some cases they were financial donors (cf. Luke 8:3). God-fearing Gentiles were welcomed (Acts 17:17). In Jerusalem, synagogues included both Hebrews and Jews from the Diaspora (Acts 6:1, 9).

A synagogue could be a designated room in a house or a discrete building. Most of the better archaeological evidence is later than the first century and reveals more clearly religious intentionality in design than may have been characteristic earlier. This evidence includes the door facing Jerusalem, artistic temple motifs, a niche for the Torah scrolls, and perimeter bench seating around an open central hall.

The Synagogue in the Bible

Since synagogues were institutions with a documented history no earlier than the third century BC, they are not mentioned in the OT. The Greek word from which the English one is derived does appear frequently in the LXX, but always with a general reference to a gathering, assembly, or meeting.

Rabbinic history (but not Scripture) makes reference to the “Great Synagogue,” meaning a group of men who transmitted traditions from the prophets to the earliest named rabbinic teachers. It is loosely based on Neh. 8–10, which describes the prayers and actions of the Jewish leaders who had returned from exile.

Synagogues frequently were locations of the teaching and healing ministry of Jesus. He began preaching the kingdom of God, teaching, and performing healing miracles in Galilean synagogues (Matt. 4:23; 9:35; 12:9; 13:54; Mark 1:21–29, 39; 3:1; 6:2; Luke 4:15–38, 44; 6:6–11; 13:10–17; John 6:59; 18:20). Later, the apostle Paul customarily initiated his mission work in the local synagogue at each of his destinations (Acts 9:19–20; 13:5, 14–15; 14:1; 17:1, 10, 17; 18:1–8; 19:8).

The last (and, from a twenty-first-century perspective, most controversial) use of the word “synagogue” in Scripture is the difficult phrase “synagogue of Satan” (Rev. 2:9; 3:9), which must be read in its context. This was written in response to the significant persecution in Asia Minor of the churches at Smyrna and Philadelphia by Jews who were in collusion with the Roman authorities. They were falsely accusing Jewish and Gentile Christian believers, creating unspeakable suffering for them. This phrase, intended to encourage Christian perseverance, implies that the churches in view represented true Israel, while their accusers were false Jews. Similar language was used by the covenant-keeping community in Qumran when, in the DSS, it referred to apostate Jews as a “congregation of Belial” and an “assembly of hypocrites” (1QHa 10:22; 15:34).

A transliteration of the Greek word synagōgē, meaning “gathering, assembly, meeting.” In English, the word “synagogue” refers either to a Jewish congregation or to the place where that congregation meets. Synagogues of the biblical era functioned as both religious and civic centers for the Jewish community.

Origins

The origin of synagogues is uncertain. The earliest archaeological evidence is from Egypt in the third century BC, consisting of inscriptions and a papyrus letter. The oldest architectural find is from the island of Delos in the Aegean Sea, although whether this was constructed as a synagogue or redesigned into one is unknown, as is whether it was Jewish or Samaritan. The oldest structures yet found in Israel consist of two rooms at Qumran and the synagogue at Gamla, which date from the late first century BC. In Capernaum, the basalt synagogue was built by a Gentile centurion for the community in the first century AD (Luke 7:1–5).

By that time, synagogues were well attested in Israel, elsewhere in the Roman Empire, and in Egypt (Matt. 4:23; Luke 4:44; Acts 9:2; 17:10, 16–17; 18:8, 19). Synagogues were found wherever there were communities of Jews, in cities and rural areas alike. Especially in Diaspora settings or remote locations, they were the heart of Jewish life. Several hypotheses have been suggested to account for their apparently sudden appearance.

Some believe that synagogues were developed during the Babylonian captivity as the response of the exile community to the destruction of their temple and sacrificial system. Despite these enormous losses, the Jews still had the Torah, and from that point forward worship and prayer based on the reading and studying of the Scriptures, which could be done locally, began to gain ascendancy. Critics of this idea, however, point out that while it makes sense, there is no direct evidence to support it.

Others think that the spread of Hellenism in the second century BC precipitated a crisis of identity among Jews. For example, 1 Maccabees reports with distress that some Jews had abandoned the covenant and teamed with the Hellenists, even going so far as to build a Greek-style gymnasium in Jerusalem (1:11–15). Thus, the thought is that synagogues were a form of resistance to the overwhelming and perversely appealing cultural changes of the day.

More recently, it has been suggested that synagogues were the gradual successors to functions that had previously taken place at city gates. First-century synagogues served a wide range of functions for the community. Throughout Israel’s prior history, however, these same activities—assembly, legal, social, educational, and religious—had taken place at the city gate (Deut. 12:15; 2 Sam. 15:2; 2 Kings 23:8; Neh. 8:1–8). The Gamla synagogue sits against the east city wall next to a probable gate, and its location could be evidence of the slow development of the synagogue as city gates changed from multipurpose facilities to portals of ingress and egress.

First-Century Synagogues

First-century synagogues served as integrated centers supporting Jewish life. Regular communal reading and exposition of Scripture, including teaching and discussion of the law and transmission of its complex associated traditions (Luke 4:16; Acts 13:14–15), occurred there. Although formal liturgical rites evolved after the destruction of the temple in AD 70, synagogues were places of prayer in the first century (Matt. 6:5). Synagogues also served as courtrooms and places where crimes were punished (Acts 22:19), as well as locations for common meals and festivals (see Acts 6:2).

Synagogues were administered by local community leaders, including a president and a board (Acts 13:15). Synagogue leaders named in the NT include Jairus (Mark 5:22; Luke 8:41), Crispus (Acts 18:8), and Sosthenes (Acts 18:17). The role of the leader was to preside over services, to rule as the judge in court cases, to represent the community, and often to act as a patron. The board served in an advisory role and assisted with teaching. A scribe maintained community records and taught.

Congregations included Pharisees, who advocated strict adherence to the law, although they were chided by Jesus for their false piety (Luke 11:42–44). Women participated in the synagogue along with the men, and in some cases they were financial donors (cf. Luke 8:3). God-fearing Gentiles were welcomed (Acts 17:17). In Jerusalem, synagogues included both Hebrews and Jews from the Diaspora (Acts 6:1, 9).

A synagogue could be a designated room in a house or a discrete building. Most of the better archaeological evidence is later than the first century and reveals more clearly religious intentionality in design than may have been characteristic earlier. This evidence includes the door facing Jerusalem, artistic temple motifs, a niche for the Torah scrolls, and perimeter bench seating around an open central hall.

The Synagogue in the Bible

Since synagogues were institutions with a documented history no earlier than the third century BC, they are not mentioned in the OT. The Greek word from which the English one is derived does appear frequently in the LXX, but always with a general reference to a gathering, assembly, or meeting.

Rabbinic history (but not Scripture) makes reference to the “Great Synagogue,” meaning a group of men who transmitted traditions from the prophets to the earliest named rabbinic teachers. It is loosely based on Neh. 8–10, which describes the prayers and actions of the Jewish leaders who had returned from exile.

Synagogues frequently were locations of the teaching and healing ministry of Jesus. He began preaching the kingdom of God, teaching, and performing healing miracles in Galilean synagogues (Matt. 4:23; 9:35; 12:9; 13:54; Mark 1:21–29, 39; 3:1; 6:2; Luke 4:15–38, 44; 6:6–11; 13:10–17; John 6:59; 18:20). Later, the apostle Paul customarily initiated his mission work in the local synagogue at each of his destinations (Acts 9:19–20; 13:5, 14–15; 14:1; 17:1, 10, 17; 18:1–8; 19:8).

The last (and, from a twenty-first-century perspective, most controversial) use of the word “synagogue” in Scripture is the difficult phrase “synagogue of Satan” (Rev. 2:9; 3:9), which must be read in its context. This was written in response to the significant persecution in Asia Minor of the churches at Smyrna and Philadelphia by Jews who were in collusion with the Roman authorities. They were falsely accusing Jewish and Gentile Christian believers, creating unspeakable suffering for them. This phrase, intended to encourage Christian perseverance, implies that the churches in view represented true Israel, while their accusers were false Jews. Similar language was used by the covenant-keeping community in Qumran when, in the DSS, it referred to apostate Jews as a “congregation of Belial” and an “assembly of hypocrites” (1QHa 10:22; 15:34).

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

(1) A king of Israel, the son of Jeroboam II (2 Kings 14:29). His reign was cut short at six months due to his assassination by Shallum (15:8–12). (2) The maternal grandfather of King Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:2; 2 Chron. 29:1). (3) A Reubenite listed between Jeiel the chief and Bela son of Azaz (1 Chron. 5:7). (4) A son of Meshelemiah, he was a gatekeeper at the tent of meeting during the reign of David (1 Chron. 9:21; 26:2). He was assigned the North Gate and was considered a wise individual (1 Chron. 26:14).

(5) The ninth of the ten sons of Jeiel and Maakah, in the genealogy of Saul (1 Chron. 9:37). He is called “Zeker” in 1 Chron. 8:31. (6) A Levitical musician who played lyre and harp during the reign of David (1 Chron. 15:18, 20; 16:5). (7) A son of Ishiah (1 Chron. 24:25). (8) The fourth son of Hosah, a gatekeeper (1 Chron. 26:11). (9) The father of Iddo, officer over the half-tribe of Manasseh in Gilead (1 Chron. 27:21).

(10) One of the five officials sent by King Jehoshaphat to teach the law in Judah (2 Chron. 17:7). (11) The father of the prophet Jahaziel (2 Chron. 20:14). (12) A son of King Jehoshaphat (2 Chron. 21:2). (13) A prophet, the son of Jehoiada the priest (2 Chron. 24:20). During the reign of Joash, he was stoned after prophesying against the people. He probably is the person mentioned in Matt. 23:35 // Luke 11:51, even though there is confusion about his genealogy. (14) A prophet who instructed King Uzziah in reverence and obedience to God (2 Chron. 26:5). (15) A Levite during the reign of Hezekiah, descended from Asaph (2 Chron. 29:13). (16) A Kohathite Levite who supervised temple repairs during the reforms of King Josiah (2 Chron. 34:12). (17) A temple administrator under King Josiah (2 Chron. 35:8).

(18) A prophet contemporary with Haggai and Ezra (Ezra 5:1). He was the son of Berekiah, a grandson of Iddo, and the head of Iddo’s priestly line (Zech. 1:1; Ezra 5:1; Neh. 12:16). His career as a prophet began in the second year of Darius (Zech. 1:1). (See also Zechariah, Book of.) (19) Returned from exile with Ezra and 150 men from the descendants of Parosh (Ezra 8:3). (20) The son of Bebai, he returned from exile with Ezra and twenty-eight men of the descendants of Bebai (Ezra 8:11). (21) One of the nine leaders sent by Ezra to Kasiphia to bring Levites back to Jerusalem to serve in the temple (Ezra 8:16). He is probably also one of the thirteen men who stood beside Ezra for the reading of the law (Neh. 8:4).

(22) One of the descendants of Elam listed among those guilty of marrying a foreign woman during the time of Ezra (Ezra 10:26). (23) An ancestor of Athaiah, one of the Judahite provinicial leaders who returned from exile (Neh. 11:4). (24) An ancestor of Maaseiah, one of the Judahite provinicial leaders who returned from exile (Neh. 11:5). (25) An ancestor of Adaiah, one of the family heads among the priests who returned from exile (Neh. 11:12). (26) The son of Jonathan, he was one of the priests who played trumpets at the dedication of the Jerusalem wall at the time of Nehemiah (Neh. 12:35, 41).

(1) A king of Israel, the son of Jeroboam II (2 Kings 14:29). His reign was cut short at six months due to his assassination by Shallum (15:8–12). (2) The maternal grandfather of King Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:2; 2 Chron. 29:1). (3) A Reubenite listed between Jeiel the chief and Bela son of Azaz (1 Chron. 5:7). (4) A son of Meshelemiah, he was a gatekeeper at the tent of meeting during the reign of David (1 Chron. 9:21; 26:2). He was assigned the North Gate and was considered a wise individual (1 Chron. 26:14).

(5) The ninth of the ten sons of Jeiel and Maakah, in the genealogy of Saul (1 Chron. 9:37). He is called “Zeker” in 1 Chron. 8:31. (6) A Levitical musician who played lyre and harp during the reign of David (1 Chron. 15:18, 20; 16:5). (7) A son of Ishiah (1 Chron. 24:25). (8) The fourth son of Hosah, a gatekeeper (1 Chron. 26:11). (9) The father of Iddo, officer over the half-tribe of Manasseh in Gilead (1 Chron. 27:21).

(10) One of the five officials sent by King Jehoshaphat to teach the law in Judah (2 Chron. 17:7). (11) The father of the prophet Jahaziel (2 Chron. 20:14). (12) A son of King Jehoshaphat (2 Chron. 21:2). (13) A prophet, the son of Jehoiada the priest (2 Chron. 24:20). During the reign of Joash, he was stoned after prophesying against the people. He probably is the person mentioned in Matt. 23:35 // Luke 11:51, even though there is confusion about his genealogy. (14) A prophet who instructed King Uzziah in reverence and obedience to God (2 Chron. 26:5). (15) A Levite during the reign of Hezekiah, descended from Asaph (2 Chron. 29:13). (16) A Kohathite Levite who supervised temple repairs during the reforms of King Josiah (2 Chron. 34:12). (17) A temple administrator under King Josiah (2 Chron. 35:8).

(18) A prophet contemporary with Haggai and Ezra (Ezra 5:1). He was the son of Berekiah, a grandson of Iddo, and the head of Iddo’s priestly line (Zech. 1:1; Ezra 5:1; Neh. 12:16). His career as a prophet began in the second year of Darius (Zech. 1:1). (See also Zechariah, Book of.) (19) Returned from exile with Ezra and 150 men from the descendants of Parosh (Ezra 8:3). (20) The son of Bebai, he returned from exile with Ezra and twenty-eight men of the descendants of Bebai (Ezra 8:11). (21) One of the nine leaders sent by Ezra to Kasiphia to bring Levites back to Jerusalem to serve in the temple (Ezra 8:16). He is probably also one of the thirteen men who stood beside Ezra for the reading of the law (Neh. 8:4).

(22) One of the descendants of Elam listed among those guilty of marrying a foreign woman during the time of Ezra (Ezra 10:26). (23) An ancestor of Athaiah, one of the Judahite provinicial leaders who returned from exile (Neh. 11:4). (24) An ancestor of Maaseiah, one of the Judahite provinicial leaders who returned from exile (Neh. 11:5). (25) An ancestor of Adaiah, one of the family heads among the priests who returned from exile (Neh. 11:12). (26) The son of Jonathan, he was one of the priests who played trumpets at the dedication of the Jerusalem wall at the time of Nehemiah (Neh. 12:35, 41).