The central city and capital of ancient Israel. The original meaning of the name probably is “founded by [the Canaanite god] Salem.” The Amarna letters refer to a Beth-Shalem, and its first reference in the Bible is Salem (Gen. 14:18). Throughout its history, the city has also been referred to variously as Zion, Jebus, Mount Moriah, and the City of David.

The name “Jerusalem” occurs more than 650 times in the OT, particularly in the history of Israel, and in the NT more than 140 times. The OT prophets used the city as a symbol of God’s dealing with his people and his plan. Jerusalem is viewed collectively as God’s abode, his chosen place, and his sovereignty, while its destruction is also representative of God’s judgment on apostasy among his people (e.g., Jer. 7:1–15; 26:18–19; Mic. 3:12). The rebuilding of the city represents the hope and grace of God (e.g., Isa. 40:1–2; 52:1, 7–8; 60–62; Jer. 30:18–19; 31:38–39; Ezek. 5:5; Hag. 2:6–8; Zech. 8:3–8). Like the writers of the OT, the NT authors spoke of Jerusalem in metaphorical and eschatological terms. Paul used Jerusalem to contrast the old and the new covenants (Gal. 4:24–26), and the writer of Hebrews used it as the place of the new covenant, sealed through the blood of Jesus (Heb. 12:22–24). In Revelation the concept of a new Jerusalem is related to the future kingdom of God (Rev. 3:12; 21:1–22:5).

Jerusalem is located in the Judean hill country, about 2,700 feet above sea level. It borders the Judean desert to the east. The city expanded and contracted in size over various hills and valleys. There are two major ridges (Eastern and Western Hills) separated by the Tyropoeon Valley. The Eastern Hill contains a saddle, the Ophel Hill, and north of this is the traditional site of Mount Moriah, where later the temple was constructed. The Eastern Hill was always occupied, since the only water source is the Gihon Spring, located in the Kidron Valley. Two other ridges were important for the city, as they were used for extramural suburbs, cemeteries, and quarries. To the east is the Mount of Olives, which is separated from the Eastern Hill by the Kidron Valley. To the west of the Western Hill is the Central Ridge Route, separated by the Hinnom Valley.

Early History through the United Monarchy

The earliest occupation was near the Gihon Spring, where Chalcolithic pottery (c. 3500 BC) and structures dating to the Early Bronze Age (c. 3000–2800 BC) were found. The Bronze Age city is mentioned in the Ebla tablets, Execration texts, and the Amarna letters. Melchizedek, the king of Salem, received gifts from Abraham and blessed him (Gen. 14). Abraham was commanded to offer Isaac as a sacrifice on one of the mountains of Mount Moriah (Gen. 22:2), the location where Solomon later built the temple (2 Chron. 3:1). The Jebusite city of the Bronze Age extended over the lower part of the Eastern Hill for about twelve acres, with a population of about one thousand.

After Joshua made a treaty with the Gibeonites, the king of Jerusalem, Adoni-Zedek, formed a coalition of five kings to attack Gibeon. Joshua defeated this coalition and killed the kings (Josh. 10). The Canaanite inhabitants of Jerusalem are referred to as Amorites (Josh. 10:5) and as Jebusites (Judg. 1:21; 1 Chron. 11:4).

When David became king over both Israel and Judah, he made Jerusalem the political, spiritual, and administrative center of his kingdom. Jerusalem became synonymous with David and was called the “City of David.” Transferring the ark to Jerusalem made it the new religious center for the Israelites. David conquered the Jebusite stronghold through the tsinnor, possibly a water tunnel (2 Sam. 5:6–8; 1 Chron. 11:4–7). He took up residence in the city and began an extensive building program, but his vision of Jerusalem as the religious center was not fully realized until his son Solomon became king and built the temple.

Solomon greatly expanded the city by building fortifications, the temple, and the royal palace (1 Kings 7–9). This was the first initial expansion of the city as Solomon extended the city northward along the Eastern Hill, up the Ophel to the site of the present-day Temple Mount. This expanded the city to about thirty-two acres, with a population of around five thousand. During the united monarchy, Jerusalem became the center of Israelite administration and religion. All Israelites were to come to Jerusalem three times a year for religious festivals. Solomonic Jerusalem became the foundation for the imagery bestowed on the city by the psalms (e.g., Pss. 46; 48; 76; 84; 87; 122; 125; 132). Although major excavations were carried out in the 1980s in the City of David, little is known archaeologically about the city of that period.

From the Divided Monarchy to the Exile

During the divided monarchy, Jerusalem was attacked by foreign forces. Jerusalem was attacked by Shishak of Egypt at the end of the tenth century BC (1 Kings 14:25–26), by Syria and northern Israel during the ninth century BC (2 Kings 12:17; 15:37), and by Sennacherib of Assyria during the seventh century BC (2 Kings 18:13). Several Judean kings undertook building projects. Uzziah fortified Jerusalem by adding towers to the city walls (2 Chron. 26:9), and Jotham built the upper gate of the temple (2 Chron. 27:3).

Hezekiah greatly expanded Jerusalem. The city doubled in size during his reign as it extended to the Western Hill (Upper City). The city then encompassed about 125 acres, with a population of about twenty-five thousand. It had expanded due to the influx of immigrants from the north when the capital of Samaria fell to the Assyrians. Hezekiah reinforced the Millo, built and rebuilt walls, and erected towers as he extended the walls to encompass the Western Hill. In preparation for the siege by Sennacherib, he constructed an underground water system to bring water from the Gihon Spring to the Pool of Siloam inside the city (2 Kings 20:20; 2 Chron. 32:2–4, 30; Isa. 22:11). Manasseh refortified Jerusalem with the construction of a new outer wall (2 Chron. 33:14). Jerusalem was invaded when Jehoiakim rebelled and was finally destroyed by Babylon in 586 BC. Prophets during the divided monarchy spoke of the destruction of Jerusalem, but also of its exaltation in later times (e.g., Isa. 2:2–4; 24:23; Jer. 7:14; Mic. 3:12).

Archaeological excavations have revealed much about Jerusalem during the time of the later Judean kings. Several walls, towers, and fortifications attributed to Hezekiah have been excavated in the Jewish Quarter. Hezekiah’s tunnel and the Siloam Inscription have been discovered, highlighting the preparations made by Hezekiah for the Assyrian siege. Several quarries and tombs have been found on the slopes of the Mount of Olives and the western slope (Ketef Hinnom) of the Hinnom Valley. In one of the Ketef Hinnom tombs, a silver amulet containing the earliest known biblical text (Num. 6:24–26) was found. Evidence of the Babylonian destruction was found in excavations of the Jewish Quarter and the City of David. A group of bullae (fired clay impressions) was found with the name of “Gemariah ben-Shaphan,” probably the scribe mentioned in Jer. 36.

From Persian to Roman Rule

After the Persian conquest of Babylon (539 BC), Cyrus II allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple. Judah became the Persian province Yehud, and Jerusalem was the administrative center. Nehemiah was appointed governor of Judea by Artaxerxes in 445 BC. Nehemiah undertook a hasty rebuilding project against the wishes of the local population (Neh. 2:19; 4:7). The rebuilt city was constricted to the area of the Eastern Hill, comprising some thirty acres, with a population of about forty-five hundred.

Alexander the Great captured Jerusalem in 332 BC. This victory marked the end of Persian rule. Following Alexander’s death, his empire was divided between the Ptolemies of Egypt and the Seleucids of Syria. Ptolemy I captured Jerusalem in 320 BC, but the Jerusalem temple continued to be the center of local Jewish life and administration. The Seleucids defeated the Ptolemies and annexed Palestine around 201–198 BC. The city and the temple were repaired during their reign. During this period the Jews were struggling with the acceptance of Hellenistic culture. The high priest Jason favored Hellenization and transformed Jerusalem into a Hellenistic polis (a Greek city-state). Jerusalem became known as Antiochia, and the city expanded to the eastern slope of the Western Hill (Upper City). Jason built a gymnasium (1 Macc. 1:11–15; 2 Macc. 4:9–17). The Maccabeans revolted, and Antiochus IV destroyed the walls of Jerusalem, erected a fortress (the Akra), and desecrated the temple. Judas Maccabeus liberated Jerusalem in 164 BC, and the temple was purified and rededicated (1 Macc. 4:36–55). Hasmonean rule lasted from 142 to 63 BC. Hasmonean Jerusalem occupied the Western and Eastern Hills. The Upper City was joined to the Temple Mount by an arched bridge across the Tyropoeon Valley (Wilson’s Arch). A fortress (the Baris) was built northwest of the temple. The Romans conquered Jerusalem in 63 BC under the rule of Pompey and ended Hasmonean rule.

The Time of Jesus and the First Century AD

Jerusalem during the time of Jesus was largely the product of Herod the Great’s policies and building programs. Herod was a Roman vassal and brought Hellenistic culture to the city. He built an amphitheater and a theater. Jerusalem became a city divided between the wealthy of the Upper City and the poor in the Lower City. Herodian Jerusalem’s population was about forty thousand, and the city extended over 230 acres, not including suburbs on the Mount of Olives and west of the city. Herod’s main building activity was the complex on the Temple Mount. Herod built a massive podium over the northern summit of the Eastern Hill. This podium stood forty-five meters high above the bottom of the Kidron Valley. This formed a rectangular platform for the temple that measured 144,000 square meters. Most of the retaining walls are visible today, and the best-known section is the Western Wall. To the south of the Temple Mount complex was the Royal Stoa, and on the northwest corner was the Antonia Fortress.

Archaeological research has uncovered several components and features of NT Jerusalem. The temple rituals needed large amounts of water, and Herod built an elaborate water-delivery and storage system. Remains of both subterranean and surface aqueducts are found from the Bethlehem region to Jerusalem. Large water-storage pools are still visible today, such as the Serpent’s Pool in the Hinnom Valley, the Pool of the Towers of Amygdalon, the Sheep Pools, the Pool of Israel, as well as several other unnamed reservoirs and water-storage features. Several segments of the city fortification walls were found in various archaeological excavations, as well as remains of the Antonia Fortress and Herod’s Upper Palace with its three towers and adjacent Agora. Jewish Quarter excavations have revealed several palatial homes with various luxury goods, evidence of the wealth of the Upper City. These homes contained a courtyard surrounded by rooms and reception halls; several had private ritual baths. Excavations of the southern wall have revealed components of the Temple Mount complex, most notably the southern monumental stairway with the ritual-bath complex building and the two entrances that led up to the Temple Mount. Several tombs and cemeteries have also been excavated in the environs around the city.

Most of Jesus’ ministry was spent in Galilee. He would have come to Jerusalem at least three times each year to attend the major festivals. Of the Gospel writers, Luke most often referred to Jerusalem and the temple as he framed his account of the deeds and teachings of Jesus. Although the events of Passion Week took place in Jerusalem and its environs, the Gospels emphasize the events and teachings of Jesus, not the geography.

The early church started in Jerusalem with the events of Pentecost. Jerusalem was the origin and the center of the early church under the leadership of James. It seemed to serve as the center of the apostles’ authority, but the missionary zeal soon shifted the ministry and focus of the church to the eastern Mediterranean. Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70 by the Romans under the direction of Titus. Jerusalem has been a central place for the Christian faith, whose followers acknowledge the city as the place of the death and resurrection of Jesus. Jerusalem played a major role throughout history and has always been a center of pilgrimage for Christians.

The word “Gentiles” is often used to translate words meaning “nations” or “peoples.” It has a Latin etymology from gens, meaning “clan” or “family” and, eventually, “race” or “people.” The Greek word genos (“race, kind”) has a close relationship. In the Bible it loosely refers to nations or peoples other than Israel. English Bibles often translate it as “nations,” “peoples,” or “races.”

Old Testament

In general, within the OT, Gentiles are not God’s people. God chose Israel to be his people, not other nations (Deut. 7:6–8; 10:15; 26:18–19). Israelite ancestry determines membership in the covenant people. Some writings thus forbid Gentiles from becoming part of God’s people (Ezra 9–10; Neh. 13).

The OT more commonly envisions Gentiles experiencing covenant blessing through Israel if they functionally become Israelites by keeping the law, including the parts we understand as ceremonial-ritual law. The law is that special life-giving and regulating aspect of the covenant that God revealed to Israel, which defines Israel (Lev. 18:1–5; 20:22–26; Deut. 4:1–8, 32–40; 6:24–25; 8:1–6; 10:12–11:32; 30:11–20; Josh. 1:7–9; Neh. 9:29; Pss. 119; 147:19–20; Ezek. 20:9–13, 21).

Such law/Israel-centered conditions for Gentiles relate to a broader OT understanding: God will reach and restore the world through Israel, the locus of his saving activity. God will bless the nations in and through Abraham’s descendants, Israel (Gen. 12:1–3; 17:4–6; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14). This covenant specifically involves keeping the law (e.g., circumcision [Gen. 17:9–14]). Some passages depict this happening through the nations being subject to Israel (Gen. 49:8–12; Num. 24:9, 17–19; Isa. 11:10–16; 14:2; 54:3). In other passages the nations will be blessed by Israel’s God as they come to Israel, bring back exiled Israel, serve Israel, present Israel with their own wealth, and/or fear Israel’s God (Isa. 45:23; 49:22–23; 51:4–5; 55:5; 60:3–16; 61:5–6; 66:12–13, 18–21; Mic. 7:12–17; Zech. 2:11; 8:22–23). Other passages further elucidate the law-defined nature of such Gentile participation in the God of Israel’s salvation (Exod. 12:48; Isa. 56:1–8; Jer. 12:14–17; Zech. 14:16–21). The portrait of the nations “flowing” up the mountain of God associates Gentile participation in God’s salvation explicitly with the law (Isa. 2:2–5; Mic. 4:1–5).

The Servant Songs in Isa. 40–55 also reflect this law/Israel-centered nature of salvation for the Gentiles. The servant, explicitly identified as Israel (41:8, 9; 42:18–19; 44:1–2, 21; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3; 54:17; see also 65:9; 66:14), serves as God’s instrument for reaching the nations (42:1, 6; 49:6; 52:15). The OT usually condemns Gentiles who remain separate from Israel to some form of judgment, especially Gentiles who have harmed Israel.

Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity

Second Temple Jewish sources exhibit diverse views about Gentiles, their nature, their possible relation to God, and their fate at the end. Many reflect something resembling the OT views. Israel as God’s people defined by the law, variously understood and contested among Second Temple sources, generally continues to be the locus of God’s ultimate blessing activities.

Situating Jesus and early Christianity within this matrix of Gentile sensitivities is illuminating. As the Jesus movement spread across the Mediterranean, proclaiming the ultimate salvation of the God of Israel in and through Jesus the Messiah, questions about how Gentiles experience this salvation of the Jewish God had paramount importance.

Some Christians, in line with traditional readings of the OT, thought that Gentiles must keep the law, becoming Jews to experience the God of Israel’s salvation in Jesus (Acts 11:1–3; 15:1, 5; Paul’s opponents in Galatia). Gentiles, after all, were separated from God and his salvation promises to Israel (Rom. 9:4–5; Eph. 2:11–13; 1 Pet. 2:10). They stood under God’s condemnation, especially because they were controlled by their passions and sin, lacking self-mastery and the ability to live rightly (Rom. 1:18–32; Eph. 4:17–19; 1 Thess. 4:5; 1 Pet. 1:14, 18).

However, various NT authors, such as Paul, contend that Gentiles need not keep the law, functionally becoming Jews, in order to participate in God’s ultimate salvation in Jesus. Christ, the climax of Israel itself, has replaced the law’s centrality and ultimacy with himself and his death and resurrection (Rom. 10:4). Through being united to Christ by the Spirit, Gentiles are, apart from the law, grafted into true, redefined Israel and become Abraham’s descendants, inheriting God’s promised salvation for Israel (Rom. 3:21–4:25; 8:1–17; 9:30–10:17; 11:13–32; Gal. 2:11–4:7; Eph. 2:11–22; 3:4–6). In Christ, by the Spirit, Gentiles attain self-mastery over their passions and sin and thus live rightly before God, inheriting the kingdom of God in Christ (Rom. 6:1–8:30; 1 Cor. 6:9–11; Gal. 5:16–26; 1 Thess. 4:3–8). Various NT writings thus reconfigure the situation of Gentiles with respect to Israel’s God because of what God did in Christ.

Debates about Gentiles, the law, salvation, and what Christ means for these issues persisted after Paul. Early Christians lacked an unequivocal saying from Jesus on the matter, and not all accepted Paul and some other NT writings.

(1) The trailing skirt of a robe or outer garment (Isa. 6:1). It usually denoted favor, wealth, and/or power (Exod. 28:33; Ps. 68:18). (2) To prepare through instruction and practice for war (Isa. 2:4) and/or life (Prov. 22:6; 1 Tim. 4:7).

Occuring in the Bible only once (2 Cor. 6:15 [NRSV: “Beliar”]), “Belial” (Gk. Beliar) has a mythological connotation in the OT associated with Sheol, chaos, and death (Heb. beliyya’al [2 Sam. 22:5; Ps. 18:4; cf. Ps. 41:8]), and it could also mean “worthlessness,” “ruin,” or “wickedness” (1 Sam. 25:25). The term is widely attested in Second Temple Jewish literature, especially in the DSS, referring to God’s archenemy, whose domain is darkness and whose counsel is wickedness (Mart. Isa. 1:8–9; 2:4; 4:2; T. Dan 1:7; 1QM 1:1–3, 13–15; 13:11; cf. 1QS 2:19; CD-A 4:12–19). Paul employs this conviction to show that the eschatological conflict is between Christ, who is the light, and Belial, who is the darkness (2 Cor. 6:15; cf. 2 Cor. 4:4).

Occuring in the Bible only once (2 Cor. 6:15 [NRSV: “Beliar”]), “Belial” (Gk. Beliar) has a mythological connotation in the OT associated with Sheol, chaos, and death (Heb. beliyya’al [2 Sam. 22:5; Ps. 18:4; cf. Ps. 41:8]), and it could also mean “worthlessness,” “ruin,” or “wickedness” (1 Sam. 25:25). The term is widely attested in Second Temple Jewish literature, especially in the DSS, referring to God’s archenemy, whose domain is darkness and whose counsel is wickedness (Mart. Isa. 1:8–9; 2:4; 4:2; T. Dan 1:7; 1QM 1:1–3, 13–15; 13:11; cf. 1QS 2:19; CD-A 4:12–19). Paul employs this conviction to show that the eschatological conflict is between Christ, who is the light, and Belial, who is the darkness (2 Cor. 6:15; cf. 2 Cor. 4:4).

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

Authorship

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plan of the Book

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

Outline

I. Judgment on Judah (1–12)

II. Judgment on the Nations (13–27)

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

IV. The Assyrian Crisis (36–39)

V. The Second Exodus (40–48)

VI. The Restoration of Jerusalem (49–55)

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

First Isaiah (Isa. 1–39)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Second Isaiah (Isa. 40–55)

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

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

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

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

Third Isaiah (Isa. 56–66)

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

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

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

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

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

An action initiated by the apostle Paul to help poor Christians in Judea. For Paul, it expresses the core of the gospel: unity of Jew and Gentile in Christ and the nations coming to the God of Israel. He references it in Rom. 15:25–32; 1 Cor. 16:1–4; 2 Cor. 8–9; and possibly Gal. 2:10. Paul gives instructions to his predominantly Gentile churches to set aside funds for him to take to the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem. Doing so expresses the sacrificial other-oriented giving of Christ. Participating in this practice, especially in the midst of hardship, and giving of one’s relative abundance to equalize the material situation with other Christians who have less manifests the saving grace of Christ at work among the givers (2 Cor. 8–9). Paul does not separate such material acts of grace from others associated with Christ’s salvation.

For Paul, it also enacts the end-time salvation of the Gentiles, as they stream to Jerusalem and bring their wealth to the Jews (cf. Isa. 2:1–4; 60:3–16; 61:5–6; 66:20; Hag. 2:7). For Paul, of course, Gentiles now relate to Jews as equals. Since they have come to participate in the ultimate blessings of the God of Israel by being grafted into Israel, they must serve the Jews in need of relief (Rom. 15:27). This expresses the unity and real connection between Gentiles and Jews in Christ. We do not know for certain whether the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem accepted the money, since some considered Paul to have rejected the God of Israel in his marginalizing of the law.

In the ancient Near East the type of cooking and heating utilized within a household depended upon the family’s socioeconomic status and lifestyle. A nomadic or seminomadic pastoral lifestyle demanded portability; permanent ovens or heating installations would have been impractical. A stable urban lifestyle made possible the construction of more complex heating and cooking equipment.

Cooking within the Seminomadic Lifestyle

Seminomadic groups, such as Abraham and his family or the Israelites before the settlement of Canaan, probably used an open fire or fire pit. A campfire was kindled on top of the ground or on flat stones. An open fire of this nature could also be ringed with a small stone circle. Shallow holes or fire pits were also dug into the ground near the front of a tent or outside, in the encampment. Since tents did not have chimneys, the smoke from a fire would escape through the door. The seasonal climate dictated whether a fire was kindled inside or outside the tent.

Fires were ignited with twigs or kindling by friction or sparks (Isa. 50:11; 64:2; 2 Macc. 10:3), a skill learned during the early Stone Age. Once lit, the burning embers of the fire could be moved around, kept smoldering, and fanned into a blaze with fresh fuel (Isa. 30:14; cf. Lev. 6:13). Abraham carried some type of an ember or fire with him when he went to sacrifice Isaac (Gen. 22:6). The “smoking firepot with a blazing torch” that symbolized God’s presence before Abraham may refer to a portable device for transporting fire (15:17).

Fuel for fire was gathered from the materials most readily available to seminomadic groups. Potential fuels included thorns and briers (Isa. 10:17), dried grass (Matt. 6:30; Luke 12:28), charcoal (John 18:18 NRSV), twigs or sticks (Isa. 64:2), wood (Gen. 22:6), and dried animal dung (Ezek. 4:15). Fire pits provided some means for keeping a family warm, as well as being used for cooking.

Cooking within the Urban Lifestyle

The sedentary urban lifestyle of the monarchial period provided the opportunity to construct permanent cooking and heating installations. In the four-room Israelite house, cooking normally was done in a fire pit or clay oven in the courtyard of the home. The baking oven ordinarily was located outside, but archaeologists have found cooking utensils and ovens in the central room of the house. This indoor oven also served as a means of heat during the colder wet season. The family most likely utilized the courtyard oven during the hotter dry season.

Egyptian and Mesopotamian reliefs provide illustrations of the structure of ancient ovens. Archaeologists have uncovered scores of examples of different types and sizes all across the ancient Near East. Small domestic ovens (Exod. 8:3) were made of clay in two basic forms. The first had an open top and was cylindrical in shape. It ranged from two to three feet in height and was about two feet in diameter. The second, about the same size, was more egg-shaped, with small openings at the base and in the top.

Some ovens were covered with a plastered layer of potsherds on the outside to improve insulation. They could be embedded in the ground or raised above it. The oven floor was lined with pebbles, and the fire was built upon it. Commercial ovens were larger and were concentrated in specific areas of a city (Neh. 3:11; 12:38).

Ovens and fire pits were used for cooking and heating in the home. Other hearths or heating ovens were employed to warm larger buildings or to perform specific tasks not related to food preparation. A large oval hearth was discovered in the central room of an Iron Age II house at Shechem. Jeremiah 36:22–23 speaks about a “firepot” or hearth used by Jehoiakim to warm his winter apartment. This hearth may have been a raised copper or bronze basin on a three-legged stand. A “fire basin” (NIV: “firepot”) is also mentioned in Zech. 12:6.

Cooking Utensils

Many types of pottery utensils, which were undoubtedly associated with cooking and eating, have been discovered in archaeological excavations in the ancient Near East. Although rare, metal and stone implements have also been found. One area in the tent or the home would be employed as a “kitchen.” A kitchen in the palace of Ramesses III is depicted on an Egyptian wall, and Ezekiel mentions the kitchens located in the new temple (46:24). Cooking and serving vessels included platters, bowls, chalices, jugs, juglets, and cooking pots. Storage vessels and grain pits also were needed to contain spices, oils, grains, and other foodstuffs.

Larger bowls designed specifically for cooking were in common use during the Bronze and Iron Ages. These “cooking pots” often were placed directly into the fire or on hot coals and were used to boil meat or make soups and other similar types of food. Iron Age II cooking pots from Palestine generally bore the trademark of the potter. Cooking pots had a short life and were replaced often. Because the style of these types of pots changed systematically over time, they have become very important in helping archaeologists date the particular level or stratum of a tell in which they were found.

The Cooking of Food

The type of food eaten by families also depended on their socioeconomic status and lifestyle. Food staples included milk products, wine, bread, and occasionally meat. Richer families could afford vegetables, fruits, dates, figs, and other less common foods. All types of households ate bread.

Grains. The most common grains used in bread making were wheat, barley, and spelt (Isa. 28:25). Wheat grew wild in Palestine, and there is evidence that seminomadic people stayed in one place long enough to cultivate small plots of grain. Grain could also be acquired in trade for other agricultural products such as goat’s milk or wool. Grain was winnowed to separate the chaff from the kernels (Matt. 3:12; Luke 3:17). Roasted grain was grain that had been “popped” in the fire instead of being milled (1 Sam. 25:18).

After being winnowed, wheat and other grains were ground initially in a hand mill. Hand mills, or querns, were of two types. The first was a simple device of two stones. The base, or “saddle,” was a flat, elongated stone that became curved through the backward and forward motion of the upper stone. The upper, or “rider,” stone was flat on one side and curved on the top to allow the user to grip the stone with both hands. The grain was placed on the saddle, and the rider stone was run repeatedly over it to grind it. This was considered menial work (Lam. 5:13). This type of grinding may have been assigned to the blinded Samson (Judg. 16:21).

The second, later type of hand mill consisted of two stone disks approximately twelve inches in diameter. The lower stone, or base, had an upright wooden stake at the center. A hole in the upper stone allowed it to fit over the base, and a handle on the upper stone was used to rotate it against the lower stone (Matt. 24:41). Grain was fed through the central hole, and the milled flour exited along the sides. The millstone mentioned in Matt. 18:6; Mark 9:42; Luke 17:2 is a larger example of this type.

Milling grain was a necessary task of the household (Jer. 25:10). Course grain was further milled into fine flour with a mortar and pestle. Course grain could be used to make boiled porridge or gruel. Finely ground flour was used in sacrificial offerings (Exod. 29:40; Lev. 2:4).

The flour was mixed with water and kneaded (Gen. 18:6; 1 Sam. 28:24; 2 Sam. 13:8; Jer. 7:18), small amounts of leaven and salt were added, and then the bread was baked. Three methods of baking bread are mentioned in the OT: over hot coals (1 Kings 19:6; Isa. 44:19), on a griddle (Lev. 7:9; cf. Ezek. 4:3), and in an oven (Lev. 26:26). Leaven was withheld from the dough if the bread was to be made and eaten in haste (Exod. 12:39; Judg. 6:19; 1 Sam. 28:24). Griddle “cakes” were also made in this fashion (Hos. 7:8; cf. Ezek. 4:12).

Bread often was baked in different shapes. Thin bread was used to scoop food from a common pot (Matt. 26:23). Other breads were formed into loaves (John 6:9). In one man’s dream a round loaf of barley bread is described as rolling down a hill and striking and overturning a tent (Judg. 7:13). Both men and women baked bread (Gen. 19:3; 1 Sam. 28:24), and priests baked bread for ritual usage (Lev. 24:5). A king could afford to have men and women as professional bakers (Gen. 40:1; 1 Sam. 8:13). Professional bakers may also have served the larger urban population (Neh. 3:11; Jer. 37:21; Hos. 7:4) in Jerusalem.

Fruits and vegetables. After settling in Canaan, the Israelites made some additions to their diet. Foodstuffs grown in cultivated gardens were now available. These included foods such as cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic (Num. 11:5). Some of these vegetables were added to stews; others were eaten uncooked. Vegetable, bean, and lentil soups were prepared in large cooking pots placed directly on the fire. Esau particularly enjoyed lentil soup (Gen. 25:30). Herbs and spices (mint, dill, and cumin) were now accessible as well (Isa. 28:25, 27; Matt. 23:23). Salt came from the Dead Sea.

Fruits too were grown and harvested. Of particular interest was the olive. Olives were crushed in a press to render oil. Olive oil was used in cooking and baking. It was mixed with fine flour to make bread (1 Kings 17:12; Ezek. 16:13; cf. Num. 11:8).

Meat. When a guest arrived or when a special occasion called for it, meat was added to the stew. Meat often was boiled (2 Kings 4:38; Ezek. 24:3–5). Spices were also added (Ezek. 24:10). Since the meat was cut up to boil, this method had the advantage of avoiding the problem of ensuring that the blood was properly drained out of an animal before it could be roasted (Lev. 17:10–11). Milk could be used in the stew; however, cooking a kid in its mother’s milk was prohibited (Exod. 23:19; 34:26; Deut. 14:21).

Meat was roasted over an open fire on a spit. Meat was available from flocks and through hunting. Abraham served his guests veal (Gen. 18:7); Gideon and his guests ate goat meat (Judg. 6:19); Samuel appears to have served Saul a mutton leg (1 Sam. 9:24). Contrary to ritual regulations, Hophni and Phinehas demanded meat for roasting (1 Sam. 2:13–15). Meat certainly was roasted as a sacrifice on the altar of the tabernacle and the temple. It also normally was roasted on feast days such as Passover (Exod. 12:8–9).

Fish were counted among the foods given to Noah and his sons after the flood (Gen. 9:2–3). The Israelites ate fish in Egypt (Num. 11:15), and fishermen plied their trade along the Nile (Isa. 19:8). Fishermen could hook, spear, or net fish (Job 41:1, 7; Eccles. 9:12; Ezek. 29:4; 47:10). In Israel, fish were taken from the Sea of Galilee or the Mediterranean. Jerusalem had a “Fish Gate,” where fish were sold (2 Chron. 33:14; Neh. 3:3; 12:39; Zeph. 1:10). The Phoenicians most likely exported several varieties of edible fish to Israel. Fish with fins and scales were clean, but those without fins or scales were not (Lev. 11:9–12). In Nehemiah’s day Phoenicians were selling fish to the inhabitants of Jerusalem even on the Sabbath (Neh. 13:16).

In NT times, the Phoenicians continued to import much of the fish brought into Palestine. The ministry of Jesus revolved around the smaller fishing industry on the Sea of Galilee. Jesus called several fishermen to follow him as disciples (Matt. 4:18). On a number of occasions Jesus helped his disciples to ply their trade by directing them where to cast their nets (John 21:6, 11). Fish were caught in dragnets (John 21:8) and hand nets (Matt. 4:18). After his resurrection Jesus ate fish with his disciples in Jerusalem and on the Sea of Galilee (Luke 24:42; John 21:9).

Fish became a staple of the common people (Matt. 14:17; 15:34). The fish used to feed the multitudes probably were salted. Fish normally were grilled over an open fire (John 21:9).

In the ancient Near East the type of cooking and heating utilized within a household depended upon the family’s socioeconomic status and lifestyle. A nomadic or seminomadic pastoral lifestyle demanded portability; permanent ovens or heating installations would have been impractical. A stable urban lifestyle made possible the construction of more complex heating and cooking equipment.

Cooking within the Seminomadic Lifestyle

Seminomadic groups, such as Abraham and his family or the Israelites before the settlement of Canaan, probably used an open fire or fire pit. A campfire was kindled on top of the ground or on flat stones. An open fire of this nature could also be ringed with a small stone circle. Shallow holes or fire pits were also dug into the ground near the front of a tent or outside, in the encampment. Since tents did not have chimneys, the smoke from a fire would escape through the door. The seasonal climate dictated whether a fire was kindled inside or outside the tent.

Fires were ignited with twigs or kindling by friction or sparks (Isa. 50:11; 64:2; 2 Macc. 10:3), a skill learned during the early Stone Age. Once lit, the burning embers of the fire could be moved around, kept smoldering, and fanned into a blaze with fresh fuel (Isa. 30:14; cf. Lev. 6:13). Abraham carried some type of an ember or fire with him when he went to sacrifice Isaac (Gen. 22:6). The “smoking firepot with a blazing torch” that symbolized God’s presence before Abraham may refer to a portable device for transporting fire (15:17).

Fuel for fire was gathered from the materials most readily available to seminomadic groups. Potential fuels included thorns and briers (Isa. 10:17), dried grass (Matt. 6:30; Luke 12:28), charcoal (John 18:18 NRSV), twigs or sticks (Isa. 64:2), wood (Gen. 22:6), and dried animal dung (Ezek. 4:15). Fire pits provided some means for keeping a family warm, as well as being used for cooking.

Cooking within the Urban Lifestyle

The sedentary urban lifestyle of the monarchial period provided the opportunity to construct permanent cooking and heating installations. In the four-room Israelite house, cooking normally was done in a fire pit or clay oven in the courtyard of the home. The baking oven ordinarily was located outside, but archaeologists have found cooking utensils and ovens in the central room of the house. This indoor oven also served as a means of heat during the colder wet season. The family most likely utilized the courtyard oven during the hotter dry season.

Egyptian and Mesopotamian reliefs provide illustrations of the structure of ancient ovens. Archaeologists have uncovered scores of examples of different types and sizes all across the ancient Near East. Small domestic ovens (Exod. 8:3) were made of clay in two basic forms. The first had an open top and was cylindrical in shape. It ranged from two to three feet in height and was about two feet in diameter. The second, about the same size, was more egg-shaped, with small openings at the base and in the top.

Some ovens were covered with a plastered layer of potsherds on the outside to improve insulation. They could be embedded in the ground or raised above it. The oven floor was lined with pebbles, and the fire was built upon it. Commercial ovens were larger and were concentrated in specific areas of a city (Neh. 3:11; 12:38).

Ovens and fire pits were used for cooking and heating in the home. Other hearths or heating ovens were employed to warm larger buildings or to perform specific tasks not related to food preparation. A large oval hearth was discovered in the central room of an Iron Age II house at Shechem. Jeremiah 36:22–23 speaks about a “firepot” or hearth used by Jehoiakim to warm his winter apartment. This hearth may have been a raised copper or bronze basin on a three-legged stand. A “fire basin” (NIV: “firepot”) is also mentioned in Zech. 12:6.

Cooking Utensils

Many types of pottery utensils, which were undoubtedly associated with cooking and eating, have been discovered in archaeological excavations in the ancient Near East. Although rare, metal and stone implements have also been found. One area in the tent or the home would be employed as a “kitchen.” A kitchen in the palace of Ramesses III is depicted on an Egyptian wall, and Ezekiel mentions the kitchens located in the new temple (46:24). Cooking and serving vessels included platters, bowls, chalices, jugs, juglets, and cooking pots. Storage vessels and grain pits also were needed to contain spices, oils, grains, and other foodstuffs.

Larger bowls designed specifically for cooking were in common use during the Bronze and Iron Ages. These “cooking pots” often were placed directly into the fire or on hot coals and were used to boil meat or make soups and other similar types of food. Iron Age II cooking pots from Palestine generally bore the trademark of the potter. Cooking pots had a short life and were replaced often. Because the style of these types of pots changed systematically over time, they have become very important in helping archaeologists date the particular level or stratum of a tell in which they were found.

The Cooking of Food

The type of food eaten by families also depended on their socioeconomic status and lifestyle. Food staples included milk products, wine, bread, and occasionally meat. Richer families could afford vegetables, fruits, dates, figs, and other less common foods. All types of households ate bread.

Grains. The most common grains used in bread making were wheat, barley, and spelt (Isa. 28:25). Wheat grew wild in Palestine, and there is evidence that seminomadic people stayed in one place long enough to cultivate small plots of grain. Grain could also be acquired in trade for other agricultural products such as goat’s milk or wool. Grain was winnowed to separate the chaff from the kernels (Matt. 3:12; Luke 3:17). Roasted grain was grain that had been “popped” in the fire instead of being milled (1 Sam. 25:18).

After being winnowed, wheat and other grains were ground initially in a hand mill. Hand mills, or querns, were of two types. The first was a simple device of two stones. The base, or “saddle,” was a flat, elongated stone that became curved through the backward and forward motion of the upper stone. The upper, or “rider,” stone was flat on one side and curved on the top to allow the user to grip the stone with both hands. The grain was placed on the saddle, and the rider stone was run repeatedly over it to grind it. This was considered menial work (Lam. 5:13). This type of grinding may have been assigned to the blinded Samson (Judg. 16:21).

The second, later type of hand mill consisted of two stone disks approximately twelve inches in diameter. The lower stone, or base, had an upright wooden stake at the center. A hole in the upper stone allowed it to fit over the base, and a handle on the upper stone was used to rotate it against the lower stone (Matt. 24:41). Grain was fed through the central hole, and the milled flour exited along the sides. The millstone mentioned in Matt. 18:6; Mark 9:42; Luke 17:2 is a larger example of this type.

Milling grain was a necessary task of the household (Jer. 25:10). Course grain was further milled into fine flour with a mortar and pestle. Course grain could be used to make boiled porridge or gruel. Finely ground flour was used in sacrificial offerings (Exod. 29:40; Lev. 2:4).

The flour was mixed with water and kneaded (Gen. 18:6; 1 Sam. 28:24; 2 Sam. 13:8; Jer. 7:18), small amounts of leaven and salt were added, and then the bread was baked. Three methods of baking bread are mentioned in the OT: over hot coals (1 Kings 19:6; Isa. 44:19), on a griddle (Lev. 7:9; cf. Ezek. 4:3), and in an oven (Lev. 26:26). Leaven was withheld from the dough if the bread was to be made and eaten in haste (Exod. 12:39; Judg. 6:19; 1 Sam. 28:24). Griddle “cakes” were also made in this fashion (Hos. 7:8; cf. Ezek. 4:12).

Bread often was baked in different shapes. Thin bread was used to scoop food from a common pot (Matt. 26:23). Other breads were formed into loaves (John 6:9). In one man’s dream a round loaf of barley bread is described as rolling down a hill and striking and overturning a tent (Judg. 7:13). Both men and women baked bread (Gen. 19:3; 1 Sam. 28:24), and priests baked bread for ritual usage (Lev. 24:5). A king could afford to have men and women as professional bakers (Gen. 40:1; 1 Sam. 8:13). Professional bakers may also have served the larger urban population (Neh. 3:11; Jer. 37:21; Hos. 7:4) in Jerusalem.

Fruits and vegetables. After settling in Canaan, the Israelites made some additions to their diet. Foodstuffs grown in cultivated gardens were now available. These included foods such as cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic (Num. 11:5). Some of these vegetables were added to stews; others were eaten uncooked. Vegetable, bean, and lentil soups were prepared in large cooking pots placed directly on the fire. Esau particularly enjoyed lentil soup (Gen. 25:30). Herbs and spices (mint, dill, and cumin) were now accessible as well (Isa. 28:25, 27; Matt. 23:23). Salt came from the Dead Sea.

Fruits too were grown and harvested. Of particular interest was the olive. Olives were crushed in a press to render oil. Olive oil was used in cooking and baking. It was mixed with fine flour to make bread (1 Kings 17:12; Ezek. 16:13; cf. Num. 11:8).

Meat. When a guest arrived or when a special occasion called for it, meat was added to the stew. Meat often was boiled (2 Kings 4:38; Ezek. 24:3–5). Spices were also added (Ezek. 24:10). Since the meat was cut up to boil, this method had the advantage of avoiding the problem of ensuring that the blood was properly drained out of an animal before it could be roasted (Lev. 17:10–11). Milk could be used in the stew; however, cooking a kid in its mother’s milk was prohibited (Exod. 23:19; 34:26; Deut. 14:21).

Meat was roasted over an open fire on a spit. Meat was available from flocks and through hunting. Abraham served his guests veal (Gen. 18:7); Gideon and his guests ate goat meat (Judg. 6:19); Samuel appears to have served Saul a mutton leg (1 Sam. 9:24). Contrary to ritual regulations, Hophni and Phinehas demanded meat for roasting (1 Sam. 2:13–15). Meat certainly was roasted as a sacrifice on the altar of the tabernacle and the temple. It also normally was roasted on feast days such as Passover (Exod. 12:8–9).

Fish were counted among the foods given to Noah and his sons after the flood (Gen. 9:2–3). The Israelites ate fish in Egypt (Num. 11:15), and fishermen plied their trade along the Nile (Isa. 19:8). Fishermen could hook, spear, or net fish (Job 41:1, 7; Eccles. 9:12; Ezek. 29:4; 47:10). In Israel, fish were taken from the Sea of Galilee or the Mediterranean. Jerusalem had a “Fish Gate,” where fish were sold (2 Chron. 33:14; Neh. 3:3; 12:39; Zeph. 1:10). The Phoenicians most likely exported several varieties of edible fish to Israel. Fish with fins and scales were clean, but those without fins or scales were not (Lev. 11:9–12). In Nehemiah’s day Phoenicians were selling fish to the inhabitants of Jerusalem even on the Sabbath (Neh. 13:16).

In NT times, the Phoenicians continued to import much of the fish brought into Palestine. The ministry of Jesus revolved around the smaller fishing industry on the Sea of Galilee. Jesus called several fishermen to follow him as disciples (Matt. 4:18). On a number of occasions Jesus helped his disciples to ply their trade by directing them where to cast their nets (John 21:6, 11). Fish were caught in dragnets (John 21:8) and hand nets (Matt. 4:18). After his resurrection Jesus ate fish with his disciples in Jerusalem and on the Sea of Galilee (Luke 24:42; John 21:9).

Fish became a staple of the common people (Matt. 14:17; 15:34). The fish used to feed the multitudes probably were salted. Fish normally were grilled over an open fire (John 21:9).

In the ancient Near East the type of cooking and heating utilized within a household depended upon the family’s socioeconomic status and lifestyle. A nomadic or seminomadic pastoral lifestyle demanded portability; permanent ovens or heating installations would have been impractical. A stable urban lifestyle made possible the construction of more complex heating and cooking equipment.

Cooking within the Seminomadic Lifestyle

Seminomadic groups, such as Abraham and his family or the Israelites before the settlement of Canaan, probably used an open fire or fire pit. A campfire was kindled on top of the ground or on flat stones. An open fire of this nature could also be ringed with a small stone circle. Shallow holes or fire pits were also dug into the ground near the front of a tent or outside, in the encampment. Since tents did not have chimneys, the smoke from a fire would escape through the door. The seasonal climate dictated whether a fire was kindled inside or outside the tent.

Fires were ignited with twigs or kindling by friction or sparks (Isa. 50:11; 64:2; 2 Macc. 10:3), a skill learned during the early Stone Age. Once lit, the burning embers of the fire could be moved around, kept smoldering, and fanned into a blaze with fresh fuel (Isa. 30:14; cf. Lev. 6:13). Abraham carried some type of an ember or fire with him when he went to sacrifice Isaac (Gen. 22:6). The “smoking firepot with a blazing torch” that symbolized God’s presence before Abraham may refer to a portable device for transporting fire (15:17).

Fuel for fire was gathered from the materials most readily available to seminomadic groups. Potential fuels included thorns and briers (Isa. 10:17), dried grass (Matt. 6:30; Luke 12:28), charcoal (John 18:18 NRSV), twigs or sticks (Isa. 64:2), wood (Gen. 22:6), and dried animal dung (Ezek. 4:15). Fire pits provided some means for keeping a family warm, as well as being used for cooking.

Cooking within the Urban Lifestyle

The sedentary urban lifestyle of the monarchial period provided the opportunity to construct permanent cooking and heating installations. In the four-room Israelite house, cooking normally was done in a fire pit or clay oven in the courtyard of the home. The baking oven ordinarily was located outside, but archaeologists have found cooking utensils and ovens in the central room of the house. This indoor oven also served as a means of heat during the colder wet season. The family most likely utilized the courtyard oven during the hotter dry season.

Egyptian and Mesopotamian reliefs provide illustrations of the structure of ancient ovens. Archaeologists have uncovered scores of examples of different types and sizes all across the ancient Near East. Small domestic ovens (Exod. 8:3) were made of clay in two basic forms. The first had an open top and was cylindrical in shape. It ranged from two to three feet in height and was about two feet in diameter. The second, about the same size, was more egg-shaped, with small openings at the base and in the top.

Some ovens were covered with a plastered layer of potsherds on the outside to improve insulation. They could be embedded in the ground or raised above it. The oven floor was lined with pebbles, and the fire was built upon it. Commercial ovens were larger and were concentrated in specific areas of a city (Neh. 3:11; 12:38).

Ovens and fire pits were used for cooking and heating in the home. Other hearths or heating ovens were employed to warm larger buildings or to perform specific tasks not related to food preparation. A large oval hearth was discovered in the central room of an Iron Age II house at Shechem. Jeremiah 36:22–23 speaks about a “firepot” or hearth used by Jehoiakim to warm his winter apartment. This hearth may have been a raised copper or bronze basin on a three-legged stand. A “fire basin” (NIV: “firepot”) is also mentioned in Zech. 12:6.

Cooking Utensils

Many types of pottery utensils, which were undoubtedly associated with cooking and eating, have been discovered in archaeological excavations in the ancient Near East. Although rare, metal and stone implements have also been found. One area in the tent or the home would be employed as a “kitchen.” A kitchen in the palace of Ramesses III is depicted on an Egyptian wall, and Ezekiel mentions the kitchens located in the new temple (46:24). Cooking and serving vessels included platters, bowls, chalices, jugs, juglets, and cooking pots. Storage vessels and grain pits also were needed to contain spices, oils, grains, and other foodstuffs.

Larger bowls designed specifically for cooking were in common use during the Bronze and Iron Ages. These “cooking pots” often were placed directly into the fire or on hot coals and were used to boil meat or make soups and other similar types of food. Iron Age II cooking pots from Palestine generally bore the trademark of the potter. Cooking pots had a short life and were replaced often. Because the style of these types of pots changed systematically over time, they have become very important in helping archaeologists date the particular level or stratum of a tell in which they were found.

The Cooking of Food

The type of food eaten by families also depended on their socioeconomic status and lifestyle. Food staples included milk products, wine, bread, and occasionally meat. Richer families could afford vegetables, fruits, dates, figs, and other less common foods. All types of households ate bread.

Grains. The most common grains used in bread making were wheat, barley, and spelt (Isa. 28:25). Wheat grew wild in Palestine, and there is evidence that seminomadic people stayed in one place long enough to cultivate small plots of grain. Grain could also be acquired in trade for other agricultural products such as goat’s milk or wool. Grain was winnowed to separate the chaff from the kernels (Matt. 3:12; Luke 3:17). Roasted grain was grain that had been “popped” in the fire instead of being milled (1 Sam. 25:18).

After being winnowed, wheat and other grains were ground initially in a hand mill. Hand mills, or querns, were of two types. The first was a simple device of two stones. The base, or “saddle,” was a flat, elongated stone that became curved through the backward and forward motion of the upper stone. The upper, or “rider,” stone was flat on one side and curved on the top to allow the user to grip the stone with both hands. The grain was placed on the saddle, and the rider stone was run repeatedly over it to grind it. This was considered menial work (Lam. 5:13). This type of grinding may have been assigned to the blinded Samson (Judg. 16:21).

The second, later type of hand mill consisted of two stone disks approximately twelve inches in diameter. The lower stone, or base, had an upright wooden stake at the center. A hole in the upper stone allowed it to fit over the base, and a handle on the upper stone was used to rotate it against the lower stone (Matt. 24:41). Grain was fed through the central hole, and the milled flour exited along the sides. The millstone mentioned in Matt. 18:6; Mark 9:42; Luke 17:2 is a larger example of this type.

Milling grain was a necessary task of the household (Jer. 25:10). Course grain was further milled into fine flour with a mortar and pestle. Course grain could be used to make boiled porridge or gruel. Finely ground flour was used in sacrificial offerings (Exod. 29:40; Lev. 2:4).

The flour was mixed with water and kneaded (Gen. 18:6; 1 Sam. 28:24; 2 Sam. 13:8; Jer. 7:18), small amounts of leaven and salt were added, and then the bread was baked. Three methods of baking bread are mentioned in the OT: over hot coals (1 Kings 19:6; Isa. 44:19), on a griddle (Lev. 7:9; cf. Ezek. 4:3), and in an oven (Lev. 26:26). Leaven was withheld from the dough if the bread was to be made and eaten in haste (Exod. 12:39; Judg. 6:19; 1 Sam. 28:24). Griddle “cakes” were also made in this fashion (Hos. 7:8; cf. Ezek. 4:12).

Bread often was baked in different shapes. Thin bread was used to scoop food from a common pot (Matt. 26:23). Other breads were formed into loaves (John 6:9). In one man’s dream a round loaf of barley bread is described as rolling down a hill and striking and overturning a tent (Judg. 7:13). Both men and women baked bread (Gen. 19:3; 1 Sam. 28:24), and priests baked bread for ritual usage (Lev. 24:5). A king could afford to have men and women as professional bakers (Gen. 40:1; 1 Sam. 8:13). Professional bakers may also have served the larger urban population (Neh. 3:11; Jer. 37:21; Hos. 7:4) in Jerusalem.

Fruits and vegetables. After settling in Canaan, the Israelites made some additions to their diet. Foodstuffs grown in cultivated gardens were now available. These included foods such as cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic (Num. 11:5). Some of these vegetables were added to stews; others were eaten uncooked. Vegetable, bean, and lentil soups were prepared in large cooking pots placed directly on the fire. Esau particularly enjoyed lentil soup (Gen. 25:30). Herbs and spices (mint, dill, and cumin) were now accessible as well (Isa. 28:25, 27; Matt. 23:23). Salt came from the Dead Sea.

Fruits too were grown and harvested. Of particular interest was the olive. Olives were crushed in a press to render oil. Olive oil was used in cooking and baking. It was mixed with fine flour to make bread (1 Kings 17:12; Ezek. 16:13; cf. Num. 11:8).

Meat. When a guest arrived or when a special occasion called for it, meat was added to the stew. Meat often was boiled (2 Kings 4:38; Ezek. 24:3–5). Spices were also added (Ezek. 24:10). Since the meat was cut up to boil, this method had the advantage of avoiding the problem of ensuring that the blood was properly drained out of an animal before it could be roasted (Lev. 17:10–11). Milk could be used in the stew; however, cooking a kid in its mother’s milk was prohibited (Exod. 23:19; 34:26; Deut. 14:21).

Meat was roasted over an open fire on a spit. Meat was available from flocks and through hunting. Abraham served his guests veal (Gen. 18:7); Gideon and his guests ate goat meat (Judg. 6:19); Samuel appears to have served Saul a mutton leg (1 Sam. 9:24). Contrary to ritual regulations, Hophni and Phinehas demanded meat for roasting (1 Sam. 2:13–15). Meat certainly was roasted as a sacrifice on the altar of the tabernacle and the temple. It also normally was roasted on feast days such as Passover (Exod. 12:8–9).

Fish were counted among the foods given to Noah and his sons after the flood (Gen. 9:2–3). The Israelites ate fish in Egypt (Num. 11:15), and fishermen plied their trade along the Nile (Isa. 19:8). Fishermen could hook, spear, or net fish (Job 41:1, 7; Eccles. 9:12; Ezek. 29:4; 47:10). In Israel, fish were taken from the Sea of Galilee or the Mediterranean. Jerusalem had a “Fish Gate,” where fish were sold (2 Chron. 33:14; Neh. 3:3; 12:39; Zeph. 1:10). The Phoenicians most likely exported several varieties of edible fish to Israel. Fish with fins and scales were clean, but those without fins or scales were not (Lev. 11:9–12). In Nehemiah’s day Phoenicians were selling fish to the inhabitants of Jerusalem even on the Sabbath (Neh. 13:16).

In NT times, the Phoenicians continued to import much of the fish brought into Palestine. The ministry of Jesus revolved around the smaller fishing industry on the Sea of Galilee. Jesus called several fishermen to follow him as disciples (Matt. 4:18). On a number of occasions Jesus helped his disciples to ply their trade by directing them where to cast their nets (John 21:6, 11). Fish were caught in dragnets (John 21:8) and hand nets (Matt. 4:18). After his resurrection Jesus ate fish with his disciples in Jerusalem and on the Sea of Galilee (Luke 24:42; John 21:9).

Fish became a staple of the common people (Matt. 14:17; 15:34). The fish used to feed the multitudes probably were salted. Fish normally were grilled over an open fire (John 21:9).

In the ancient Near East the type of cooking and heating utilized within a household depended upon the family’s socioeconomic status and lifestyle. A nomadic or seminomadic pastoral lifestyle demanded portability; permanent ovens or heating installations would have been impractical. A stable urban lifestyle made possible the construction of more complex heating and cooking equipment.

Cooking within the Seminomadic Lifestyle

Seminomadic groups, such as Abraham and his family or the Israelites before the settlement of Canaan, probably used an open fire or fire pit. A campfire was kindled on top of the ground or on flat stones. An open fire of this nature could also be ringed with a small stone circle. Shallow holes or fire pits were also dug into the ground near the front of a tent or outside, in the encampment. Since tents did not have chimneys, the smoke from a fire would escape through the door. The seasonal climate dictated whether a fire was kindled inside or outside the tent.

Fires were ignited with twigs or kindling by friction or sparks (Isa. 50:11; 64:2; 2 Macc. 10:3), a skill learned during the early Stone Age. Once lit, the burning embers of the fire could be moved around, kept smoldering, and fanned into a blaze with fresh fuel (Isa. 30:14; cf. Lev. 6:13). Abraham carried some type of an ember or fire with him when he went to sacrifice Isaac (Gen. 22:6). The “smoking firepot with a blazing torch” that symbolized God’s presence before Abraham may refer to a portable device for transporting fire (15:17).

Fuel for fire was gathered from the materials most readily available to seminomadic groups. Potential fuels included thorns and briers (Isa. 10:17), dried grass (Matt. 6:30; Luke 12:28), charcoal (John 18:18 NRSV), twigs or sticks (Isa. 64:2), wood (Gen. 22:6), and dried animal dung (Ezek. 4:15). Fire pits provided some means for keeping a family warm, as well as being used for cooking.

Cooking within the Urban Lifestyle

The sedentary urban lifestyle of the monarchial period provided the opportunity to construct permanent cooking and heating installations. In the four-room Israelite house, cooking normally was done in a fire pit or clay oven in the courtyard of the home. The baking oven ordinarily was located outside, but archaeologists have found cooking utensils and ovens in the central room of the house. This indoor oven also served as a means of heat during the colder wet season. The family most likely utilized the courtyard oven during the hotter dry season.

Egyptian and Mesopotamian reliefs provide illustrations of the structure of ancient ovens. Archaeologists have uncovered scores of examples of different types and sizes all across the ancient Near East. Small domestic ovens (Exod. 8:3) were made of clay in two basic forms. The first had an open top and was cylindrical in shape. It ranged from two to three feet in height and was about two feet in diameter. The second, about the same size, was more egg-shaped, with small openings at the base and in the top.

Some ovens were covered with a plastered layer of potsherds on the outside to improve insulation. They could be embedded in the ground or raised above it. The oven floor was lined with pebbles, and the fire was built upon it. Commercial ovens were larger and were concentrated in specific areas of a city (Neh. 3:11; 12:38).

Ovens and fire pits were used for cooking and heating in the home. Other hearths or heating ovens were employed to warm larger buildings or to perform specific tasks not related to food preparation. A large oval hearth was discovered in the central room of an Iron Age II house at Shechem. Jeremiah 36:22–23 speaks about a “firepot” or hearth used by Jehoiakim to warm his winter apartment. This hearth may have been a raised copper or bronze basin on a three-legged stand. A “fire basin” (NIV: “firepot”) is also mentioned in Zech. 12:6.

Cooking Utensils

Many types of pottery utensils, which were undoubtedly associated with cooking and eating, have been discovered in archaeological excavations in the ancient Near East. Although rare, metal and stone implements have also been found. One area in the tent or the home would be employed as a “kitchen.” A kitchen in the palace of Ramesses III is depicted on an Egyptian wall, and Ezekiel mentions the kitchens located in the new temple (46:24). Cooking and serving vessels included platters, bowls, chalices, jugs, juglets, and cooking pots. Storage vessels and grain pits also were needed to contain spices, oils, grains, and other foodstuffs.

Larger bowls designed specifically for cooking were in common use during the Bronze and Iron Ages. These “cooking pots” often were placed directly into the fire or on hot coals and were used to boil meat or make soups and other similar types of food. Iron Age II cooking pots from Palestine generally bore the trademark of the potter. Cooking pots had a short life and were replaced often. Because the style of these types of pots changed systematically over time, they have become very important in helping archaeologists date the particular level or stratum of a tell in which they were found.

The Cooking of Food

The type of food eaten by families also depended on their socioeconomic status and lifestyle. Food staples included milk products, wine, bread, and occasionally meat. Richer families could afford vegetables, fruits, dates, figs, and other less common foods. All types of households ate bread.

Grains. The most common grains used in bread making were wheat, barley, and spelt (Isa. 28:25). Wheat grew wild in Palestine, and there is evidence that seminomadic people stayed in one place long enough to cultivate small plots of grain. Grain could also be acquired in trade for other agricultural products such as goat’s milk or wool. Grain was winnowed to separate the chaff from the kernels (Matt. 3:12; Luke 3:17). Roasted grain was grain that had been “popped” in the fire instead of being milled (1 Sam. 25:18).

After being winnowed, wheat and other grains were ground initially in a hand mill. Hand mills, or querns, were of two types. The first was a simple device of two stones. The base, or “saddle,” was a flat, elongated stone that became curved through the backward and forward motion of the upper stone. The upper, or “rider,” stone was flat on one side and curved on the top to allow the user to grip the stone with both hands. The grain was placed on the saddle, and the rider stone was run repeatedly over it to grind it. This was considered menial work (Lam. 5:13). This type of grinding may have been assigned to the blinded Samson (Judg. 16:21).

The second, later type of hand mill consisted of two stone disks approximately twelve inches in diameter. The lower stone, or base, had an upright wooden stake at the center. A hole in the upper stone allowed it to fit over the base, and a handle on the upper stone was used to rotate it against the lower stone (Matt. 24:41). Grain was fed through the central hole, and the milled flour exited along the sides. The millstone mentioned in Matt. 18:6; Mark 9:42; Luke 17:2 is a larger example of this type.

Milling grain was a necessary task of the household (Jer. 25:10). Course grain was further milled into fine flour with a mortar and pestle. Course grain could be used to make boiled porridge or gruel. Finely ground flour was used in sacrificial offerings (Exod. 29:40; Lev. 2:4).

The flour was mixed with water and kneaded (Gen. 18:6; 1 Sam. 28:24; 2 Sam. 13:8; Jer. 7:18), small amounts of leaven and salt were added, and then the bread was baked. Three methods of baking bread are mentioned in the OT: over hot coals (1 Kings 19:6; Isa. 44:19), on a griddle (Lev. 7:9; cf. Ezek. 4:3), and in an oven (Lev. 26:26). Leaven was withheld from the dough if the bread was to be made and eaten in haste (Exod. 12:39; Judg. 6:19; 1 Sam. 28:24). Griddle “cakes” were also made in this fashion (Hos. 7:8; cf. Ezek. 4:12).

Bread often was baked in different shapes. Thin bread was used to scoop food from a common pot (Matt. 26:23). Other breads were formed into loaves (John 6:9). In one man’s dream a round loaf of barley bread is described as rolling down a hill and striking and overturning a tent (Judg. 7:13). Both men and women baked bread (Gen. 19:3; 1 Sam. 28:24), and priests baked bread for ritual usage (Lev. 24:5). A king could afford to have men and women as professional bakers (Gen. 40:1; 1 Sam. 8:13). Professional bakers may also have served the larger urban population (Neh. 3:11; Jer. 37:21; Hos. 7:4) in Jerusalem.

Fruits and vegetables. After settling in Canaan, the Israelites made some additions to their diet. Foodstuffs grown in cultivated gardens were now available. These included foods such as cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic (Num. 11:5). Some of these vegetables were added to stews; others were eaten uncooked. Vegetable, bean, and lentil soups were prepared in large cooking pots placed directly on the fire. Esau particularly enjoyed lentil soup (Gen. 25:30). Herbs and spices (mint, dill, and cumin) were now accessible as well (Isa. 28:25, 27; Matt. 23:23). Salt came from the Dead Sea.

Fruits too were grown and harvested. Of particular interest was the olive. Olives were crushed in a press to render oil. Olive oil was used in cooking and baking. It was mixed with fine flour to make bread (1 Kings 17:12; Ezek. 16:13; cf. Num. 11:8).

Meat. When a guest arrived or when a special occasion called for it, meat was added to the stew. Meat often was boiled (2 Kings 4:38; Ezek. 24:3–5). Spices were also added (Ezek. 24:10). Since the meat was cut up to boil, this method had the advantage of avoiding the problem of ensuring that the blood was properly drained out of an animal before it could be roasted (Lev. 17:10–11). Milk could be used in the stew; however, cooking a kid in its mother’s milk was prohibited (Exod. 23:19; 34:26; Deut. 14:21).

Meat was roasted over an open fire on a spit. Meat was available from flocks and through hunting. Abraham served his guests veal (Gen. 18:7); Gideon and his guests ate goat meat (Judg. 6:19); Samuel appears to have served Saul a mutton leg (1 Sam. 9:24). Contrary to ritual regulations, Hophni and Phinehas demanded meat for roasting (1 Sam. 2:13–15). Meat certainly was roasted as a sacrifice on the altar of the tabernacle and the temple. It also normally was roasted on feast days such as Passover (Exod. 12:8–9).

Fish were counted among the foods given to Noah and his sons after the flood (Gen. 9:2–3). The Israelites ate fish in Egypt (Num. 11:15), and fishermen plied their trade along the Nile (Isa. 19:8). Fishermen could hook, spear, or net fish (Job 41:1, 7; Eccles. 9:12; Ezek. 29:4; 47:10). In Israel, fish were taken from the Sea of Galilee or the Mediterranean. Jerusalem had a “Fish Gate,” where fish were sold (2 Chron. 33:14; Neh. 3:3; 12:39; Zeph. 1:10). The Phoenicians most likely exported several varieties of edible fish to Israel. Fish with fins and scales were clean, but those without fins or scales were not (Lev. 11:9–12). In Nehemiah’s day Phoenicians were selling fish to the inhabitants of Jerusalem even on the Sabbath (Neh. 13:16).

In NT times, the Phoenicians continued to import much of the fish brought into Palestine. The ministry of Jesus revolved around the smaller fishing industry on the Sea of Galilee. Jesus called several fishermen to follow him as disciples (Matt. 4:18). On a number of occasions Jesus helped his disciples to ply their trade by directing them where to cast their nets (John 21:6, 11). Fish were caught in dragnets (John 21:8) and hand nets (Matt. 4:18). After his resurrection Jesus ate fish with his disciples in Jerusalem and on the Sea of Galilee (Luke 24:42; John 21:9).

Fish became a staple of the common people (Matt. 14:17; 15:34). The fish used to feed the multitudes probably were salted. Fish normally were grilled over an open fire (John 21:9).

In the ancient Near East the type of cooking and heating utilized within a household depended upon the family’s socioeconomic status and lifestyle. A nomadic or seminomadic pastoral lifestyle demanded portability; permanent ovens or heating installations would have been impractical. A stable urban lifestyle made possible the construction of more complex heating and cooking equipment.

Cooking within the Seminomadic Lifestyle

Seminomadic groups, such as Abraham and his family or the Israelites before the settlement of Canaan, probably used an open fire or fire pit. A campfire was kindled on top of the ground or on flat stones. An open fire of this nature could also be ringed with a small stone circle. Shallow holes or fire pits were also dug into the ground near the front of a tent or outside, in the encampment. Since tents did not have chimneys, the smoke from a fire would escape through the door. The seasonal climate dictated whether a fire was kindled inside or outside the tent.

Fires were ignited with twigs or kindling by friction or sparks (Isa. 50:11; 64:2; 2 Macc. 10:3), a skill learned during the early Stone Age. Once lit, the burning embers of the fire could be moved around, kept smoldering, and fanned into a blaze with fresh fuel (Isa. 30:14; cf. Lev. 6:13). Abraham carried some type of an ember or fire with him when he went to sacrifice Isaac (Gen. 22:6). The “smoking firepot with a blazing torch” that symbolized God’s presence before Abraham may refer to a portable device for transporting fire (15:17).

Fuel for fire was gathered from the materials most readily available to seminomadic groups. Potential fuels included thorns and briers (Isa. 10:17), dried grass (Matt. 6:30; Luke 12:28), charcoal (John 18:18 NRSV), twigs or sticks (Isa. 64:2), wood (Gen. 22:6), and dried animal dung (Ezek. 4:15). Fire pits provided some means for keeping a family warm, as well as being used for cooking.

Cooking within the Urban Lifestyle

The sedentary urban lifestyle of the monarchial period provided the opportunity to construct permanent cooking and heating installations. In the four-room Israelite house, cooking normally was done in a fire pit or clay oven in the courtyard of the home. The baking oven ordinarily was located outside, but archaeologists have found cooking utensils and ovens in the central room of the house. This indoor oven also served as a means of heat during the colder wet season. The family most likely utilized the courtyard oven during the hotter dry season.

Egyptian and Mesopotamian reliefs provide illustrations of the structure of ancient ovens. Archaeologists have uncovered scores of examples of different types and sizes all across the ancient Near East. Small domestic ovens (Exod. 8:3) were made of clay in two basic forms. The first had an open top and was cylindrical in shape. It ranged from two to three feet in height and was about two feet in diameter. The second, about the same size, was more egg-shaped, with small openings at the base and in the top.

Some ovens were covered with a plastered layer of potsherds on the outside to improve insulation. They could be embedded in the ground or raised above it. The oven floor was lined with pebbles, and the fire was built upon it. Commercial ovens were larger and were concentrated in specific areas of a city (Neh. 3:11; 12:38).

Ovens and fire pits were used for cooking and heating in the home. Other hearths or heating ovens were employed to warm larger buildings or to perform specific tasks not related to food preparation. A large oval hearth was discovered in the central room of an Iron Age II house at Shechem. Jeremiah 36:22–23 speaks about a “firepot” or hearth used by Jehoiakim to warm his winter apartment. This hearth may have been a raised copper or bronze basin on a three-legged stand. A “fire basin” (NIV: “firepot”) is also mentioned in Zech. 12:6.

Cooking Utensils

Many types of pottery utensils, which were undoubtedly associated with cooking and eating, have been discovered in archaeological excavations in the ancient Near East. Although rare, metal and stone implements have also been found. One area in the tent or the home would be employed as a “kitchen.” A kitchen in the palace of Ramesses III is depicted on an Egyptian wall, and Ezekiel mentions the kitchens located in the new temple (46:24). Cooking and serving vessels included platters, bowls, chalices, jugs, juglets, and cooking pots. Storage vessels and grain pits also were needed to contain spices, oils, grains, and other foodstuffs.

Larger bowls designed specifically for cooking were in common use during the Bronze and Iron Ages. These “cooking pots” often were placed directly into the fire or on hot coals and were used to boil meat or make soups and other similar types of food. Iron Age II cooking pots from Palestine generally bore the trademark of the potter. Cooking pots had a short life and were replaced often. Because the style of these types of pots changed systematically over time, they have become very important in helping archaeologists date the particular level or stratum of a tell in which they were found.

The Cooking of Food

The type of food eaten by families also depended on their socioeconomic status and lifestyle. Food staples included milk products, wine, bread, and occasionally meat. Richer families could afford vegetables, fruits, dates, figs, and other less common foods. All types of households ate bread.

Grains. The most common grains used in bread making were wheat, barley, and spelt (Isa. 28:25). Wheat grew wild in Palestine, and there is evidence that seminomadic people stayed in one place long enough to cultivate small plots of grain. Grain could also be acquired in trade for other agricultural products such as goat’s milk or wool. Grain was winnowed to separate the chaff from the kernels (Matt. 3:12; Luke 3:17). Roasted grain was grain that had been “popped” in the fire instead of being milled (1 Sam. 25:18).

After being winnowed, wheat and other grains were ground initially in a hand mill. Hand mills, or querns, were of two types. The first was a simple device of two stones. The base, or “saddle,” was a flat, elongated stone that became curved through the backward and forward motion of the upper stone. The upper, or “rider,” stone was flat on one side and curved on the top to allow the user to grip the stone with both hands. The grain was placed on the saddle, and the rider stone was run repeatedly over it to grind it. This was considered menial work (Lam. 5:13). This type of grinding may have been assigned to the blinded Samson (Judg. 16:21).

The second, later type of hand mill consisted of two stone disks approximately twelve inches in diameter. The lower stone, or base, had an upright wooden stake at the center. A hole in the upper stone allowed it to fit over the base, and a handle on the upper stone was used to rotate it against the lower stone (Matt. 24:41). Grain was fed through the central hole, and the milled flour exited along the sides. The millstone mentioned in Matt. 18:6; Mark 9:42; Luke 17:2 is a larger example of this type.

Milling grain was a necessary task of the household (Jer. 25:10). Course grain was further milled into fine flour with a mortar and pestle. Course grain could be used to make boiled porridge or gruel. Finely ground flour was used in sacrificial offerings (Exod. 29:40; Lev. 2:4).

The flour was mixed with water and kneaded (Gen. 18:6; 1 Sam. 28:24; 2 Sam. 13:8; Jer. 7:18), small amounts of leaven and salt were added, and then the bread was baked. Three methods of baking bread are mentioned in the OT: over hot coals (1 Kings 19:6; Isa. 44:19), on a griddle (Lev. 7:9; cf. Ezek. 4:3), and in an oven (Lev. 26:26). Leaven was withheld from the dough if the bread was to be made and eaten in haste (Exod. 12:39; Judg. 6:19; 1 Sam. 28:24). Griddle “cakes” were also made in this fashion (Hos. 7:8; cf. Ezek. 4:12).

Bread often was baked in different shapes. Thin bread was used to scoop food from a common pot (Matt. 26:23). Other breads were formed into loaves (John 6:9). In one man’s dream a round loaf of barley bread is described as rolling down a hill and striking and overturning a tent (Judg. 7:13). Both men and women baked bread (Gen. 19:3; 1 Sam. 28:24), and priests baked bread for ritual usage (Lev. 24:5). A king could afford to have men and women as professional bakers (Gen. 40:1; 1 Sam. 8:13). Professional bakers may also have served the larger urban population (Neh. 3:11; Jer. 37:21; Hos. 7:4) in Jerusalem.

Fruits and vegetables. After settling in Canaan, the Israelites made some additions to their diet. Foodstuffs grown in cultivated gardens were now available. These included foods such as cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic (Num. 11:5). Some of these vegetables were added to stews; others were eaten uncooked. Vegetable, bean, and lentil soups were prepared in large cooking pots placed directly on the fire. Esau particularly enjoyed lentil soup (Gen. 25:30). Herbs and spices (mint, dill, and cumin) were now accessible as well (Isa. 28:25, 27; Matt. 23:23). Salt came from the Dead Sea.

Fruits too were grown and harvested. Of particular interest was the olive. Olives were crushed in a press to render oil. Olive oil was used in cooking and baking. It was mixed with fine flour to make bread (1 Kings 17:12; Ezek. 16:13; cf. Num. 11:8).

Meat. When a guest arrived or when a special occasion called for it, meat was added to the stew. Meat often was boiled (2 Kings 4:38; Ezek. 24:3–5). Spices were also added (Ezek. 24:10). Since the meat was cut up to boil, this method had the advantage of avoiding the problem of ensuring that the blood was properly drained out of an animal before it could be roasted (Lev. 17:10–11). Milk could be used in the stew; however, cooking a kid in its mother’s milk was prohibited (Exod. 23:19; 34:26; Deut. 14:21).

Meat was roasted over an open fire on a spit. Meat was available from flocks and through hunting. Abraham served his guests veal (Gen. 18:7); Gideon and his guests ate goat meat (Judg. 6:19); Samuel appears to have served Saul a mutton leg (1 Sam. 9:24). Contrary to ritual regulations, Hophni and Phinehas demanded meat for roasting (1 Sam. 2:13–15). Meat certainly was roasted as a sacrifice on the altar of the tabernacle and the temple. It also normally was roasted on feast days such as Passover (Exod. 12:8–9).

Fish were counted among the foods given to Noah and his sons after the flood (Gen. 9:2–3). The Israelites ate fish in Egypt (Num. 11:15), and fishermen plied their trade along the Nile (Isa. 19:8). Fishermen could hook, spear, or net fish (Job 41:1, 7; Eccles. 9:12; Ezek. 29:4; 47:10). In Israel, fish were taken from the Sea of Galilee or the Mediterranean. Jerusalem had a “Fish Gate,” where fish were sold (2 Chron. 33:14; Neh. 3:3; 12:39; Zeph. 1:10). The Phoenicians most likely exported several varieties of edible fish to Israel. Fish with fins and scales were clean, but those without fins or scales were not (Lev. 11:9–12). In Nehemiah’s day Phoenicians were selling fish to the inhabitants of Jerusalem even on the Sabbath (Neh. 13:16).

In NT times, the Phoenicians continued to import much of the fish brought into Palestine. The ministry of Jesus revolved around the smaller fishing industry on the Sea of Galilee. Jesus called several fishermen to follow him as disciples (Matt. 4:18). On a number of occasions Jesus helped his disciples to ply their trade by directing them where to cast their nets (John 21:6, 11). Fish were caught in dragnets (John 21:8) and hand nets (Matt. 4:18). After his resurrection Jesus ate fish with his disciples in Jerusalem and on the Sea of Galilee (Luke 24:42; John 21:9).

Fish became a staple of the common people (Matt. 14:17; 15:34). The fish used to feed the multitudes probably were salted. Fish normally were grilled over an open fire (John 21:9).

The word “Gentiles” is often used to translate words meaning “nations” or “peoples.” It has a Latin etymology from gens, meaning “clan” or “family” and, eventually, “race” or “people.” The Greek word genos (“race, kind”) has a close relationship. In the Bible it loosely refers to nations or peoples other than Israel. English Bibles often translate it as “nations,” “peoples,” or “races.”

Old Testament

In general, within the OT, Gentiles are not God’s people. God chose Israel to be his people, not other nations (Deut. 7:6–8; 10:15; 26:18–19). Israelite ancestry determines membership in the covenant people. Some writings thus forbid Gentiles from becoming part of God’s people (Ezra 9–10; Neh. 13).

The OT more commonly envisions Gentiles experiencing covenant blessing through Israel if they functionally become Israelites by keeping the law, including the parts we understand as ceremonial-ritual law. The law is that special life-giving and regulating aspect of the covenant that God revealed to Israel, which defines Israel (Lev. 18:1–5; 20:22–26; Deut. 4:1–8, 32–40; 6:24–25; 8:1–6; 10:12–11:32; 30:11–20; Josh. 1:7–9; Neh. 9:29; Pss. 119; 147:19–20; Ezek. 20:9–13, 21).

Such law/Israel-centered conditions for Gentiles relate to a broader OT understanding: God will reach and restore the world through Israel, the locus of his saving activity. God will bless the nations in and through Abraham’s descendants, Israel (Gen. 12:1–3; 17:4–6; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14). This covenant specifically involves keeping the law (e.g., circumcision [Gen. 17:9–14]). Some passages depict this happening through the nations being subject to Israel (Gen. 49:8–12; Num. 24:9, 17–19; Isa. 11:10–16; 14:2; 54:3). In other passages the nations will be blessed by Israel’s God as they come to Israel, bring back exiled Israel, serve Israel, present Israel with their own wealth, and/or fear Israel’s God (Isa. 45:23; 49:22–23; 51:4–5; 55:5; 60:3–16; 61:5–6; 66:12–13, 18–21; Mic. 7:12–17; Zech. 2:11; 8:22–23). Other passages further elucidate the law-defined nature of such Gentile participation in the God of Israel’s salvation (Exod. 12:48; Isa. 56:1–8; Jer. 12:14–17; Zech. 14:16–21). The portrait of the nations “flowing” up the mountain of God associates Gentile participation in God’s salvation explicitly with the law (Isa. 2:2–5; Mic. 4:1–5).

The Servant Songs in Isa. 40–55 also reflect this law/Israel-centered nature of salvation for the Gentiles. The servant, explicitly identified as Israel (41:8, 9; 42:18–19; 44:1–2, 21; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3; 54:17; see also 65:9; 66:14), serves as God’s instrument for reaching the nations (42:1, 6; 49:6; 52:15). The OT usually condemns Gentiles who remain separate from Israel to some form of judgment, especially Gentiles who have harmed Israel.

Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity

Second Temple Jewish sources exhibit diverse views about Gentiles, their nature, their possible relation to God, and their fate at the end. Many reflect something resembling the OT views. Israel as God’s people defined by the law, variously understood and contested among Second Temple sources, generally continues to be the locus of God’s ultimate blessing activities.

Situating Jesus and early Christianity within this matrix of Gentile sensitivities is illuminating. As the Jesus movement spread across the Mediterranean, proclaiming the ultimate salvation of the God of Israel in and through Jesus the Messiah, questions about how Gentiles experience this salvation of the Jewish God had paramount importance.

Some Christians, in line with traditional readings of the OT, thought that Gentiles must keep the law, becoming Jews to experience the God of Israel’s salvation in Jesus (Acts 11:1–3; 15:1, 5; Paul’s opponents in Galatia). Gentiles, after all, were separated from God and his salvation promises to Israel (Rom. 9:4–5; Eph. 2:11–13; 1 Pet. 2:10). They stood under God’s condemnation, especially because they were controlled by their passions and sin, lacking self-mastery and the ability to live rightly (Rom. 1:18–32; Eph. 4:17–19; 1 Thess. 4:5; 1 Pet. 1:14, 18).

However, various NT authors, such as Paul, contend that Gentiles need not keep the law, functionally becoming Jews, in order to participate in God’s ultimate salvation in Jesus. Christ, the climax of Israel itself, has replaced the law’s centrality and ultimacy with himself and his death and resurrection (Rom. 10:4). Through being united to Christ by the Spirit, Gentiles are, apart from the law, grafted into true, redefined Israel and become Abraham’s descendants, inheriting God’s promised salvation for Israel (Rom. 3:21–4:25; 8:1–17; 9:30–10:17; 11:13–32; Gal. 2:11–4:7; Eph. 2:11–22; 3:4–6). In Christ, by the Spirit, Gentiles attain self-mastery over their passions and sin and thus live rightly before God, inheriting the kingdom of God in Christ (Rom. 6:1–8:30; 1 Cor. 6:9–11; Gal. 5:16–26; 1 Thess. 4:3–8). Various NT writings thus reconfigure the situation of Gentiles with respect to Israel’s God because of what God did in Christ.

Debates about Gentiles, the law, salvation, and what Christ means for these issues persisted after Paul. Early Christians lacked an unequivocal saying from Jesus on the matter, and not all accepted Paul and some other NT writings.

The word “Gentiles” is often used to translate words meaning “nations” or “peoples.” It has a Latin etymology from gens, meaning “clan” or “family” and, eventually, “race” or “people.” The Greek word genos (“race, kind”) has a close relationship. In the Bible it loosely refers to nations or peoples other than Israel. English Bibles often translate it as “nations,” “peoples,” or “races.”

Old Testament

In general, within the OT, Gentiles are not God’s people. God chose Israel to be his people, not other nations (Deut. 7:6–8; 10:15; 26:18–19). Israelite ancestry determines membership in the covenant people. Some writings thus forbid Gentiles from becoming part of God’s people (Ezra 9–10; Neh. 13).

The OT more commonly envisions Gentiles experiencing covenant blessing through Israel if they functionally become Israelites by keeping the law, including the parts we understand as ceremonial-ritual law. The law is that special life-giving and regulating aspect of the covenant that God revealed to Israel, which defines Israel (Lev. 18:1–5; 20:22–26; Deut. 4:1–8, 32–40; 6:24–25; 8:1–6; 10:12–11:32; 30:11–20; Josh. 1:7–9; Neh. 9:29; Pss. 119; 147:19–20; Ezek. 20:9–13, 21).

Such law/Israel-centered conditions for Gentiles relate to a broader OT understanding: God will reach and restore the world through Israel, the locus of his saving activity. God will bless the nations in and through Abraham’s descendants, Israel (Gen. 12:1–3; 17:4–6; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14). This covenant specifically involves keeping the law (e.g., circumcision [Gen. 17:9–14]). Some passages depict this happening through the nations being subject to Israel (Gen. 49:8–12; Num. 24:9, 17–19; Isa. 11:10–16; 14:2; 54:3). In other passages the nations will be blessed by Israel’s God as they come to Israel, bring back exiled Israel, serve Israel, present Israel with their own wealth, and/or fear Israel’s God (Isa. 45:23; 49:22–23; 51:4–5; 55:5; 60:3–16; 61:5–6; 66:12–13, 18–21; Mic. 7:12–17; Zech. 2:11; 8:22–23). Other passages further elucidate the law-defined nature of such Gentile participation in the God of Israel’s salvation (Exod. 12:48; Isa. 56:1–8; Jer. 12:14–17; Zech. 14:16–21). The portrait of the nations “flowing” up the mountain of God associates Gentile participation in God’s salvation explicitly with the law (Isa. 2:2–5; Mic. 4:1–5).

The Servant Songs in Isa. 40–55 also reflect this law/Israel-centered nature of salvation for the Gentiles. The servant, explicitly identified as Israel (41:8, 9; 42:18–19; 44:1–2, 21; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3; 54:17; see also 65:9; 66:14), serves as God’s instrument for reaching the nations (42:1, 6; 49:6; 52:15). The OT usually condemns Gentiles who remain separate from Israel to some form of judgment, especially Gentiles who have harmed Israel.

Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity

Second Temple Jewish sources exhibit diverse views about Gentiles, their nature, their possible relation to God, and their fate at the end. Many reflect something resembling the OT views. Israel as God’s people defined by the law, variously understood and contested among Second Temple sources, generally continues to be the locus of God’s ultimate blessing activities.

Situating Jesus and early Christianity within this matrix of Gentile sensitivities is illuminating. As the Jesus movement spread across the Mediterranean, proclaiming the ultimate salvation of the God of Israel in and through Jesus the Messiah, questions about how Gentiles experience this salvation of the Jewish God had paramount importance.

Some Christians, in line with traditional readings of the OT, thought that Gentiles must keep the law, becoming Jews to experience the God of Israel’s salvation in Jesus (Acts 11:1–3; 15:1, 5; Paul’s opponents in Galatia). Gentiles, after all, were separated from God and his salvation promises to Israel (Rom. 9:4–5; Eph. 2:11–13; 1 Pet. 2:10). They stood under God’s condemnation, especially because they were controlled by their passions and sin, lacking self-mastery and the ability to live rightly (Rom. 1:18–32; Eph. 4:17–19; 1 Thess. 4:5; 1 Pet. 1:14, 18).

However, various NT authors, such as Paul, contend that Gentiles need not keep the law, functionally becoming Jews, in order to participate in God’s ultimate salvation in Jesus. Christ, the climax of Israel itself, has replaced the law’s centrality and ultimacy with himself and his death and resurrection (Rom. 10:4). Through being united to Christ by the Spirit, Gentiles are, apart from the law, grafted into true, redefined Israel and become Abraham’s descendants, inheriting God’s promised salvation for Israel (Rom. 3:21–4:25; 8:1–17; 9:30–10:17; 11:13–32; Gal. 2:11–4:7; Eph. 2:11–22; 3:4–6). In Christ, by the Spirit, Gentiles attain self-mastery over their passions and sin and thus live rightly before God, inheriting the kingdom of God in Christ (Rom. 6:1–8:30; 1 Cor. 6:9–11; Gal. 5:16–26; 1 Thess. 4:3–8). Various NT writings thus reconfigure the situation of Gentiles with respect to Israel’s God because of what God did in Christ.

Debates about Gentiles, the law, salvation, and what Christ means for these issues persisted after Paul. Early Christians lacked an unequivocal saying from Jesus on the matter, and not all accepted Paul and some other NT writings.

In the ancient Near East the type of cooking and heating utilized within a household depended upon the family’s socioeconomic status and lifestyle. A nomadic or seminomadic pastoral lifestyle demanded portability; permanent ovens or heating installations would have been impractical. A stable urban lifestyle made possible the construction of more complex heating and cooking equipment.

Cooking within the Seminomadic Lifestyle

Seminomadic groups, such as Abraham and his family or the Israelites before the settlement of Canaan, probably used an open fire or fire pit. A campfire was kindled on top of the ground or on flat stones. An open fire of this nature could also be ringed with a small stone circle. Shallow holes or fire pits were also dug into the ground near the front of a tent or outside, in the encampment. Since tents did not have chimneys, the smoke from a fire would escape through the door. The seasonal climate dictated whether a fire was kindled inside or outside the tent.

Fires were ignited with twigs or kindling by friction or sparks (Isa. 50:11; 64:2; 2 Macc. 10:3), a skill learned during the early Stone Age. Once lit, the burning embers of the fire could be moved around, kept smoldering, and fanned into a blaze with fresh fuel (Isa. 30:14; cf. Lev. 6:13). Abraham carried some type of an ember or fire with him when he went to sacrifice Isaac (Gen. 22:6). The “smoking firepot with a blazing torch” that symbolized God’s presence before Abraham may refer to a portable device for transporting fire (15:17).

Fuel for fire was gathered from the materials most readily available to seminomadic groups. Potential fuels included thorns and briers (Isa. 10:17), dried grass (Matt. 6:30; Luke 12:28), charcoal (John 18:18 NRSV), twigs or sticks (Isa. 64:2), wood (Gen. 22:6), and dried animal dung (Ezek. 4:15). Fire pits provided some means for keeping a family warm, as well as being used for cooking.

Cooking within the Urban Lifestyle

The sedentary urban lifestyle of the monarchial period provided the opportunity to construct permanent cooking and heating installations. In the four-room Israelite house, cooking normally was done in a fire pit or clay oven in the courtyard of the home. The baking oven ordinarily was located outside, but archaeologists have found cooking utensils and ovens in the central room of the house. This indoor oven also served as a means of heat during the colder wet season. The family most likely utilized the courtyard oven during the hotter dry season.

Egyptian and Mesopotamian reliefs provide illustrations of the structure of ancient ovens. Archaeologists have uncovered scores of examples of different types and sizes all across the ancient Near East. Small domestic ovens (Exod. 8:3) were made of clay in two basic forms. The first had an open top and was cylindrical in shape. It ranged from two to three feet in height and was about two feet in diameter. The second, about the same size, was more egg-shaped, with small openings at the base and in the top.

Some ovens were covered with a plastered layer of potsherds on the outside to improve insulation. They could be embedded in the ground or raised above it. The oven floor was lined with pebbles, and the fire was built upon it. Commercial ovens were larger and were concentrated in specific areas of a city (Neh. 3:11; 12:38).

Ovens and fire pits were used for cooking and heating in the home. Other hearths or heating ovens were employed to warm larger buildings or to perform specific tasks not related to food preparation. A large oval hearth was discovered in the central room of an Iron Age II house at Shechem. Jeremiah 36:22–23 speaks about a “firepot” or hearth used by Jehoiakim to warm his winter apartment. This hearth may have been a raised copper or bronze basin on a three-legged stand. A “fire basin” (NIV: “firepot”) is also mentioned in Zech. 12:6.

Cooking Utensils

Many types of pottery utensils, which were undoubtedly associated with cooking and eating, have been discovered in archaeological excavations in the ancient Near East. Although rare, metal and stone implements have also been found. One area in the tent or the home would be employed as a “kitchen.” A kitchen in the palace of Ramesses III is depicted on an Egyptian wall, and Ezekiel mentions the kitchens located in the new temple (46:24). Cooking and serving vessels included platters, bowls, chalices, jugs, juglets, and cooking pots. Storage vessels and grain pits also were needed to contain spices, oils, grains, and other foodstuffs.

Larger bowls designed specifically for cooking were in common use during the Bronze and Iron Ages. These “cooking pots” often were placed directly into the fire or on hot coals and were used to boil meat or make soups and other similar types of food. Iron Age II cooking pots from Palestine generally bore the trademark of the potter. Cooking pots had a short life and were replaced often. Because the style of these types of pots changed systematically over time, they have become very important in helping archaeologists date the particular level or stratum of a tell in which they were found.

The Cooking of Food

The type of food eaten by families also depended on their socioeconomic status and lifestyle. Food staples included milk products, wine, bread, and occasionally meat. Richer families could afford vegetables, fruits, dates, figs, and other less common foods. All types of households ate bread.

Grains. The most common grains used in bread making were wheat, barley, and spelt (Isa. 28:25). Wheat grew wild in Palestine, and there is evidence that seminomadic people stayed in one place long enough to cultivate small plots of grain. Grain could also be acquired in trade for other agricultural products such as goat’s milk or wool. Grain was winnowed to separate the chaff from the kernels (Matt. 3:12; Luke 3:17). Roasted grain was grain that had been “popped” in the fire instead of being milled (1 Sam. 25:18).

After being winnowed, wheat and other grains were ground initially in a hand mill. Hand mills, or querns, were of two types. The first was a simple device of two stones. The base, or “saddle,” was a flat, elongated stone that became curved through the backward and forward motion of the upper stone. The upper, or “rider,” stone was flat on one side and curved on the top to allow the user to grip the stone with both hands. The grain was placed on the saddle, and the rider stone was run repeatedly over it to grind it. This was considered menial work (Lam. 5:13). This type of grinding may have been assigned to the blinded Samson (Judg. 16:21).

The second, later type of hand mill consisted of two stone disks approximately twelve inches in diameter. The lower stone, or base, had an upright wooden stake at the center. A hole in the upper stone allowed it to fit over the base, and a handle on the upper stone was used to rotate it against the lower stone (Matt. 24:41). Grain was fed through the central hole, and the milled flour exited along the sides. The millstone mentioned in Matt. 18:6; Mark 9:42; Luke 17:2 is a larger example of this type.

Milling grain was a necessary task of the household (Jer. 25:10). Course grain was further milled into fine flour with a mortar and pestle. Course grain could be used to make boiled porridge or gruel. Finely ground flour was used in sacrificial offerings (Exod. 29:40; Lev. 2:4).

The flour was mixed with water and kneaded (Gen. 18:6; 1 Sam. 28:24; 2 Sam. 13:8; Jer. 7:18), small amounts of leaven and salt were added, and then the bread was baked. Three methods of baking bread are mentioned in the OT: over hot coals (1 Kings 19:6; Isa. 44:19), on a griddle (Lev. 7:9; cf. Ezek. 4:3), and in an oven (Lev. 26:26). Leaven was withheld from the dough if the bread was to be made and eaten in haste (Exod. 12:39; Judg. 6:19; 1 Sam. 28:24). Griddle “cakes” were also made in this fashion (Hos. 7:8; cf. Ezek. 4:12).

Bread often was baked in different shapes. Thin bread was used to scoop food from a common pot (Matt. 26:23). Other breads were formed into loaves (John 6:9). In one man’s dream a round loaf of barley bread is described as rolling down a hill and striking and overturning a tent (Judg. 7:13). Both men and women baked bread (Gen. 19:3; 1 Sam. 28:24), and priests baked bread for ritual usage (Lev. 24:5). A king could afford to have men and women as professional bakers (Gen. 40:1; 1 Sam. 8:13). Professional bakers may also have served the larger urban population (Neh. 3:11; Jer. 37:21; Hos. 7:4) in Jerusalem.

Fruits and vegetables. After settling in Canaan, the Israelites made some additions to their diet. Foodstuffs grown in cultivated gardens were now available. These included foods such as cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic (Num. 11:5). Some of these vegetables were added to stews; others were eaten uncooked. Vegetable, bean, and lentil soups were prepared in large cooking pots placed directly on the fire. Esau particularly enjoyed lentil soup (Gen. 25:30). Herbs and spices (mint, dill, and cumin) were now accessible as well (Isa. 28:25, 27; Matt. 23:23). Salt came from the Dead Sea.

Fruits too were grown and harvested. Of particular interest was the olive. Olives were crushed in a press to render oil. Olive oil was used in cooking and baking. It was mixed with fine flour to make bread (1 Kings 17:12; Ezek. 16:13; cf. Num. 11:8).

Meat. When a guest arrived or when a special occasion called for it, meat was added to the stew. Meat often was boiled (2 Kings 4:38; Ezek. 24:3–5). Spices were also added (Ezek. 24:10). Since the meat was cut up to boil, this method had the advantage of avoiding the problem of ensuring that the blood was properly drained out of an animal before it could be roasted (Lev. 17:10–11). Milk could be used in the stew; however, cooking a kid in its mother’s milk was prohibited (Exod. 23:19; 34:26; Deut. 14:21).

Meat was roasted over an open fire on a spit. Meat was available from flocks and through hunting. Abraham served his guests veal (Gen. 18:7); Gideon and his guests ate goat meat (Judg. 6:19); Samuel appears to have served Saul a mutton leg (1 Sam. 9:24). Contrary to ritual regulations, Hophni and Phinehas demanded meat for roasting (1 Sam. 2:13–15). Meat certainly was roasted as a sacrifice on the altar of the tabernacle and the temple. It also normally was roasted on feast days such as Passover (Exod. 12:8–9).

Fish were counted among the foods given to Noah and his sons after the flood (Gen. 9:2–3). The Israelites ate fish in Egypt (Num. 11:15), and fishermen plied their trade along the Nile (Isa. 19:8). Fishermen could hook, spear, or net fish (Job 41:1, 7; Eccles. 9:12; Ezek. 29:4; 47:10). In Israel, fish were taken from the Sea of Galilee or the Mediterranean. Jerusalem had a “Fish Gate,” where fish were sold (2 Chron. 33:14; Neh. 3:3; 12:39; Zeph. 1:10). The Phoenicians most likely exported several varieties of edible fish to Israel. Fish with fins and scales were clean, but those without fins or scales were not (Lev. 11:9–12). In Nehemiah’s day Phoenicians were selling fish to the inhabitants of Jerusalem even on the Sabbath (Neh. 13:16).

In NT times, the Phoenicians continued to import much of the fish brought into Palestine. The ministry of Jesus revolved around the smaller fishing industry on the Sea of Galilee. Jesus called several fishermen to follow him as disciples (Matt. 4:18). On a number of occasions Jesus helped his disciples to ply their trade by directing them where to cast their nets (John 21:6, 11). Fish were caught in dragnets (John 21:8) and hand nets (Matt. 4:18). After his resurrection Jesus ate fish with his disciples in Jerusalem and on the Sea of Galilee (Luke 24:42; John 21:9).

Fish became a staple of the common people (Matt. 14:17; 15:34). The fish used to feed the multitudes probably were salted. Fish normally were grilled over an open fire (John 21:9).

The incorporation or integration of multiple and diverse groups into one. God promised that all peoples would be blessed in Abraham and his descendants (Gen. 12:3; 22:18; cf. Gal. 3:8). Israel, as the recipient of God’s blessing, was to be a light to the nations (Isa. 49:6), a kingdom of priests mediating God’s presence to the surrounding peoples (Exod. 19:6; Ps. 67:1–2). The prophets anticipated a glorious day when the nations would flow into God’s house and his word would go out from Jerusalem to the nations (Isa. 2:1–5). In Christ, Gentiles have been included in the “Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16), and Paul longed for the fullness (ESV: “full inclusion”) of the Jewish people through faith (Rom. 11:12–17). Ultimately, people from every tribe, language, people, and nation will together worship Christ forever (Rev. 5:9).

Jesus embodied the inclusive nature of the kingdom of God in his practice of table fellowship with the socially marginalized or despised (Luke 15:2). His ministry included women, Samaritans, and Gentiles (Luke 8:2–3; John 4:40; 12:20). Christ commissioned his Jewish followers to make disciples of all nations (Matt. 28:19), in fulfillment of OT expectation (Luke 24:47). In the church, differences in ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status continue, but believers are called to a profound unity amid diversity because of the work of Christ (Gal. 3:26–28) and the gift of the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:11).

Gender inclusiveness is an important consideration for modern Bible translations. It concerns the question of whether to use language that is not gender specific instead of masculine language when the context calls for it (e.g., “people” rather than “men,” and “brothers and sisters” rather than “brothers”). Some versions (e.g., TNIV, NRSV, NET, NLT, REB) prefer gender-inclusive language, while others (e.g., NASB, ESV, NKJV) do not.

The incorporation or integration of multiple and diverse groups into one. God promised that all peoples would be blessed in Abraham and his descendants (Gen. 12:3; 22:18; cf. Gal. 3:8). Israel, as the recipient of God’s blessing, was to be a light to the nations (Isa. 49:6), a kingdom of priests mediating God’s presence to the surrounding peoples (Exod. 19:6; Ps. 67:1–2). The prophets anticipated a glorious day when the nations would flow into God’s house and his word would go out from Jerusalem to the nations (Isa. 2:1–5). In Christ, Gentiles have been included in the “Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16), and Paul longed for the fullness (ESV: “full inclusion”) of the Jewish people through faith (Rom. 11:12–17). Ultimately, people from every tribe, language, people, and nation will together worship Christ forever (Rev. 5:9).

Jesus embodied the inclusive nature of the kingdom of God in his practice of table fellowship with the socially marginalized or despised (Luke 15:2). His ministry included women, Samaritans, and Gentiles (Luke 8:2–3; John 4:40; 12:20). Christ commissioned his Jewish followers to make disciples of all nations (Matt. 28:19), in fulfillment of OT expectation (Luke 24:47). In the church, differences in ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status continue, but believers are called to a profound unity amid diversity because of the work of Christ (Gal. 3:26–28) and the gift of the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:11).

Gender inclusiveness is an important consideration for modern Bible translations. It concerns the question of whether to use language that is not gender specific instead of masculine language when the context calls for it (e.g., “people” rather than “men,” and “brothers and sisters” rather than “brothers”). Some versions (e.g., TNIV, NRSV, NET, NLT, REB) prefer gender-inclusive language, while others (e.g., NASB, ESV, NKJV) do not.

The incorporation or integration of multiple and diverse groups into one. God promised that all peoples would be blessed in Abraham and his descendants (Gen. 12:3; 22:18; cf. Gal. 3:8). Israel, as the recipient of God’s blessing, was to be a light to the nations (Isa. 49:6), a kingdom of priests mediating God’s presence to the surrounding peoples (Exod. 19:6; Ps. 67:1–2). The prophets anticipated a glorious day when the nations would flow into God’s house and his word would go out from Jerusalem to the nations (Isa. 2:1–5). In Christ, Gentiles have been included in the “Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16), and Paul longed for the fullness (ESV: “full inclusion”) of the Jewish people through faith (Rom. 11:12–17). Ultimately, people from every tribe, language, people, and nation will together worship Christ forever (Rev. 5:9).

Jesus embodied the inclusive nature of the kingdom of God in his practice of table fellowship with the socially marginalized or despised (Luke 15:2). His ministry included women, Samaritans, and Gentiles (Luke 8:2–3; John 4:40; 12:20). Christ commissioned his Jewish followers to make disciples of all nations (Matt. 28:19), in fulfillment of OT expectation (Luke 24:47). In the church, differences in ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status continue, but believers are called to a profound unity amid diversity because of the work of Christ (Gal. 3:26–28) and the gift of the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:11).

Gender inclusiveness is an important consideration for modern Bible translations. It concerns the question of whether to use language that is not gender specific instead of masculine language when the context calls for it (e.g., “people” rather than “men,” and “brothers and sisters” rather than “brothers”). Some versions (e.g., TNIV, NRSV, NET, NLT, REB) prefer gender-inclusive language, while others (e.g., NASB, ESV, NKJV) do not.

Galatians is often understood as the great letter teaching justification by faith in Christ alone. Paul inveighs against false teachers who teach Christians to supplement the work of Christ with their own keeping of the law as part of earning salvation.

This traditional reading has been powerful and edifying. However, setting Galatians within a plausible ancient social setting reveals further powerful functions of the letter. Galatians turns out to be more than a container delivering the timeless and vital doctrine of salvation by believing and not by doing. The approach to Galatians in this article seeks to establish plausible ancient social settings primarily through exploring a constellation of ancient Mediterranean cultural codes. This contextual orienting helps modern readers appreciate how issues that seem to us bizarre or insignificant might have been issues of life and death to people in different contexts.

Setting and Message

Cultural context. By the time of Galatians (mid-first century AD), a relatively common moral sensitivity existed among the diverse spectrum of Greco-Roman (pagan, Jewish, and Christian) intellectuals: self-mastery (enkrateia). The ideal person led a life of virtue by mastering powerful irrational passions, which led to excessive, weak, irrational, and evil behavior. Although people differed on the means to self-mastery, this general ideal defined broader notions about the successful life. Elites represented the ideal leader as one defined by self-mastery. This qualified such a person to rule others whose capacity for and attainment of self-mastery were inferior, to rule those who cannot even rule themselves. Authority figures projected this characteristic and perpetuated social worlds in which prestige and authority were bound up with the ideal of self-mastery. Many average people also made self-mastery an ideal, whether striving for it in their own lives or allocating authority and prestige to those perceived to have attained it. Various Jewish teachers presented Judaism, especially keeping its laws and studying its sacred writings, as the premier path to self-mastery and thus a happy life. Some pagans also conceived of Judaism, especially some of its laws, along these lines.

Certain Jewish views of Gentiles constitute another important cultural code. Many Jews read the OT as depicting the following concerning Gentiles: They were separated from Israel’s God and his promises for his people, the Jews (Rom. 9:4–5; Eph. 2:11–13; 1 Pet. 2:10). They stood under God’s condemnation, especially because they were idolaters controlled by their passions and sin, lacking self-mastery and the ability to live rightly (Rom. 1:18–32; Eph. 4:17–19; 1 Thess. 4:5; 1 Pet. 1:14, 18). Jews, on the other hand, were by definition God’s special people, whom he had chosen over other nations (Deut. 7:6–8; 10:15; 26:18–19). He had watched over them and would ultimately rescue them. Gentiles would experience covenant blessing in and through Israel if they functionally became Jews by keeping the law, including the parts we understand as ceremonial-ritual law. The law was that special life-giving and regulating aspect of the covenant that God had revealed to Israel, which defined Jews as Jews (Lev. 18:1–5; 20:22–26; Deut. 4:1–8, 32–40; 6:24–25; 8:1–6; 10:12–11:32; 30:11–20; Josh. 1:7–9; Neh. 9:29; Pss. 119; 147:19–20; Ezek. 20:9–13, 21). Such law/Israel-centered conditions for Gentiles relate to a broader OT understanding: God had planned to restore the world through Israel, the locus of his saving activity. God would bless the nations in Abraham’s descendants, Israel (Gen. 12:1–3; 17:4–6; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14). Various passages depict this happening as the nations were subjected to Israel, came to Israel, served Israel, presented Israel with their own wealth and possessions, and/or feared Israel’s God (Gen. 49:8–12; Num. 24:9, 17–19; Isa. 11:10–16; 14:2; 45:23; 49:22–23; 51:4–5; 54:3; 55:5; 60:3–16; 61:5–6; 66:12–13, 18–21; Mic. 7:12–17; Zech. 2:11; 8:22–23). Other passages further elucidate the law-defined nature of such Gentile participation in the God of Israel’s salvation (Gen. 17:9–14; Exod. 12:48; Isa. 2:2–5; 56:1–8; Jer. 12:14–17; Mic. 4:1–5; Zech. 14:16–21). God would condemn Gentiles who remain separate from Israel, especially Gentiles who harm Israel. For many Jews around the time of Galatians, salvation for Gentiles thus remained Israel-centered.

Many ancient Jews also construed the world through apocalyptic views of reality. This understanding conceived of the present visible world as characterized by the influence of evil supernatural beings (demons), suffering, and evil. One day God and his angels would completely triumph in the invisible heavenly reality; the events in this reality determine life in the lower visible world. Then the evil age of the present world of suffering would be over. Evil and suffering would be vanquished, God’s people would be rescued, the agents of suffering in the old age would be judged, the Spirit would be poured out, the nations would come to Israel’s God, and the heavenly reality would fully break in and renew the visible world. God’s people, Israel, would experience ultimate salvation, having been rescued from the evil age. The law remained a defining reality in God’s plans to rescue the world in most Jewish apocalyptic scenarios. Experiencing this salvation remained a matter of being part of God’s righteous people, Israel.

Situation of the letter. With these cultural codes in view, the following situation for the letter of Galatians seems plausible. Paul proclaimed to some of the predominantly Gentile population of Galatia the good news (“gospel”) of the God of Israel’s salvation through Jesus the Messiah (Gal. 1:8–9, 11; 4:13). Some accepted this message of faith and devoted themselves to Jesus and the God of Israel (1:2, 9; 3:1–6; 4:14–20). After Paul left, other Christian teachers came to Galatia. They possibly claimed association with the Jerusalem church and, perhaps, with Peter and James. In line with some of the Jewish views of Gentiles discussed above, they taught that the Gentile Christians in Galatia must functionally become Jews and keep the law (for other examples of such early Christian teachers, see Acts 11:1–3; 15:1, 5). These other teachers probably drew on Scriptures and traditions about Abraham to make their arguments. The God of Israel would save his people, “the righteous,” and through them the rest of the world, through the relationship that he had initially established with Abraham (Gen. 12:1–3; 17:4–6; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14). The teachers could easily show from the Scriptures that circumcision and the law defined God’s relationship with Abraham and were always intended to do so (17:9–14; 26:5). They, like most contemporary Jewish writers, thought that obedience to the law (26:5) defined Abraham’s faith toward God (15:6). If the Galatians were to be Abraham’s descendants, they too must keep the law and be circumcised like their new father, Abraham. The teachers could also deploy passages from the Scriptures to the effect that everyone who did not keep the law was cursed (Deut. 27:26; cf. Gal. 3:10), but that everyone who kept the law would live (Lev. 18:5; cf. Gal. 3:12). For these teachers, Jesus the Messiah was part of the final stage in the God of Israel’s law-shaped apocalyptic plan to rescue his people (the Jews) and, through them, the nations.

It seems that the teachers also capitalized on the moral sensitivity of self-mastery and the not uncommon understanding of the Jewish law as an ideal means for attaining it. Thus, they also urged the Galatians to keep the law through representing it as a means to attaining the prestigious moral and social ideal of self-mastery. Furthermore, the Galatians may have thought that the law offered them a concrete guide to life because of its numerous detailed prescriptions. It also provided substantive ways for the Galatians to reinforce their identity in the midst of their villages, especially because it commanded practices that could set them apart. As a result, at least some of the Galatian Christians decided to keep the law, perhaps seeking circumcision. They were persuaded that the God of Israel and Jesus only save those within the Jewish space defined by the law. These Galatians sought to keep the law, looking to its power for self-mastery.

Outline

I. Greeting (1:1–5)

II. The Law-Defined Gospel Is a Different Gospel (1:6–10)

III. Paul’s Gospel Is Straight from God (1:11–24)

IV. The Jerusalem Apostles Recognize Paul’s Law-Free Gospel (2:1–10)

V. Paul and Peter on Whether Gentiles Should Live Like Jews (2:11–21)

VI. Works of the Law or Christ’s Faithfulness? (3:1–5)

VII. Paul Addresses the Situation in Galatia (3:6–4:31)

A. Scriptural arguments to answer Paul’s question (3:6–14)

B. Incorporation into Christ means incorporation into Abraham (3:15–29)

C. Heirs versus slaves (4:1–11)

D. The Galatians’ past experience with Paul and the gospel (4:12–20)

E. Heirs versus slaves: Sarah and Hagar (4:21–31)

VIII. Summary and Restatement of Paul’s Argument (5:1–12)

IX. The Faithfulness of Christ and Communal Living (5:13–6:10)

A. Freedom in Christ (5:13–15)

B. Self-mastery (5:16–24)

C. The way of the Spirit and Christ’s cruciform faithfulness (5:25–6:10)

X. Conclusion and Summary (6:11–18)

Structure and Contents

I. Greeting (1:1–5). When Paul hears of this situation among the Galatian churches, he writes them a frustrated letter. He commences by stressing how Jesus, through giving himself for our sins, is God’s means for delivering us from the present evil age (1:3–4). As Paul will make clear, Jesus and the law represent mutually exclusive means of deliverance (3:21–22). In contrast to most Jews, Paul will thus shockingly dissociate the law from the God of Israel’s apocalyptic deliverance.

II. The law-defined gospel is a different gospel (1:6–10). Paul continues by making clear his point of view: despite what the other teachers say, their law-defined gospel is in fact a damnable “different gospel” (1:6–10).

III. Paul’s gospel is straight from God (1:11–24). While the other teachers may claim that their gospel comes from the authoritative Jerusalem church, Paul explains that his gospel comes straight from God and not from other men (1:11–24).

IV. The Jerusalem apostles recognize Paul’s law-free gospel (2:1–10). However, when he had met with the Jerusalem apostles, they had recognized his law-free gospel (1:18–2:10). Indeed, they had not forced Titus to be circumcised (2:3). Also, 1:18–2:10 represents Paul as an embodiment of the radical transforming power of the gospel. Whereas Paul previously had advanced far and zealously “in Judaism,” persecuting the church, now he steadfastly serves the church and boldly stands against Jews who zealously seek to impose the law (“Judaism”) on Gentile Christians.

V. Paul and Peter on whether Gentiles should live like Jews (2:11–21). Paul then narrates an account of an incident that speaks directly to the Galatian situation (2:11–21). Previously in Antioch Peter had acted so as to imply that Gentiles would have to live like Jews (e.g., keep the law) in order to truly be unified with God’s people (2:11–14). Paul, however, has rebuked Peter (2:14). Paul continues with a speech about how Gentiles are made righteous (“justified”) not within the space demarcated by the “works of the law,” but rather within the faithfulness of Jesus the Messiah (2:15–16). The works of the law, or the duties commanded by the law, do not define those who are “righteous”—that is, God’s true people who will be saved. Rather, the faithfulness of Christ defines God’s true people, the ones who believe in Jesus. Here Paul for the first time explicitly dissociates the law from the God of Israel’s apocalyptic salvation in Jesus (the) Christ. The law, which defines Gentiles as “sinners,” has been torn down in Christ’s crucifixion (2:17–18). Paul then presents himself as an embodiment of God’s saving work in Christ. In being crucified with Christ, he has died to the law. Paul no longer lives, but now Christ lives in him. The faithfulness of Christ, who loves him and has given himself for him, now defines Paul’s life, not the law (2:19–20). From a more traditional Jewish perspective, Paul has undermined God’s grace because he has marginalized the law, the premier means of grace and life that God has given to his people. In fact, however, the law is utterly opposed to Christ’s faithful saving death, which is the true means of God’s ultimate saving and gracious actions toward his people (2:21).

This understanding of 2:11–21 revolves around how Paul considers his entire discussion of justification, the faithfulness of Christ, and the words of the law to be dealing with the issue of whether Gentiles should be forced to live like Jews (2:14). This might seem surprising to us. Does this not reduce Paul’s discussion of the great doctrine of justification to dealing merely with social and identity issues? Within the logic of Jewish apocalyptic thought, however, issues of the identity of God’s people and what defines them are by definition ultimate salvation issues, not merely social issues. The God of Israel will rescue only his true people. Thus questions of who really constitutes his true people and how they are defined are paramount, life-and-death, salvation issues. Paul never abandons Jewish apocalyptic salvation logic; he simply redefines it around Christ and not the law.

This reading understands the phrase pistis Christou as “the faithfulness of Christ,” a shorthand reference to Jesus’ faithful saving death on the cross. Traditionally people translate the phrase as “faith in Christ.” In line with much recent scholarship, however, this discussion understands the phrase differently, while still recognizing that Paul considers belief in Christ to be of paramount importance: “so we also have believed in Christ Jesus in order to be justified by the faithfulness of Christ and not by the works of the law” (2:16 [all translations are the author’s]).

VI. Works of the law or Christ’s faithfulness? (3:1–5). So far, Paul has not addressed the powerful scriptural arguments and appeals to the law as a means to self-mastery through which the opposing teachers have gained influence. As becomes clear from the rest of the letter, Paul does not anchor his counterarguments ultimately in interpretations of the Jewish Scriptures, possibly because the scriptural arguments of the opposing teachers would have more cogency. Again, they draw on understandings about Gentiles that they can easily ground in the God of Israel’s sacred writings. Paul instead appeals directly to how the Galatians have experienced salvation initially. Have they received and experienced the workings of the Spirit “out of/from the works of the law, or from the message of (Christ’s) faithfulness” (3:1–5)? Paul, of course, knows that the answer is “from the message of Christ’s faithfulness” (often translated as “hearing with faith”) apart from the works of the law. Paul thus plays a trump card that undercuts the opposing teachers. The Galatians have received the Spirit, a classic end-time blessing for the God of Israel’s people, apart from the law. Thus, in Christ, God’s people clearly cannot be defined by the law (see also Acts 10:44–11:18; 15:6–11). The law-defined gospel of the opposing teachers simply cannot be right, since the Galatians have received the Spirit and experienced salvation apart from the law. One cannot overstate the importance of this obvious argument from the Galatians’ experience for Paul. This settles the entire issue within the logic of his letter. All of Paul’s following arguments using the Jewish Scriptures presuppose that his readings of them, depicting Gentile participation in the God of Israel’s people apart from the law, must be correct, and that the opposing teachers’ arguments from Scripture also must be wrong.

VII. Paul addresses the situation in Galatia (3:6–4:31). For the rest of 3:6–4:31, Paul continues to address the situation in Galatia within the cultural codes and kinds of concerns sketched above. In 3:6–13 Paul launches into a densely packed excursus of scriptural arguments to set up an answer to his rhetorical question “Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so out of/from the works of the law, or from the message of (Christ’s) faithfulness?” (3:5). He sets up the answer to his question, which comes in 3:14, by focusing on the nature of the Galatians’ Abra-hamic sonship—that is, the nature of their identity as the God of Israel’s special people. Paul argues that Christ’s faithfulness, and not the law, defines their Abrahamic sonship. Within this excursus it seems plausible that Paul draws upon and undercuts texts that the opposing teachers have used (Lev. 18:5; Deut. 27:26). In 3:15–29 Paul elucidates how the Galatians’ incorporation into Christ through his faithfulness can actually mean that they are incorporated into Abraham, become his descendants, and thus become “heirs according to promise” (3:29).

In 4:1–7 Paul restates parts of his preceding discussion in a different way, introducing the language of slavery. In 4:12–20 Paul returns to reminding the Galatians of their past experience with himself and the gospel. Paul has embodied Christ to them, and they to him. He has brought them Christ in his weakness, and they have accepted him as such. Their turn to the opposing teachers marks a departure from how they first received Paul.

VIII. Summary and restatement of Paul’s argument (5:1–12). In 5:2–6 Paul quickly summarizes the substance of his arguments thus far, while in 5:7–12 he resummarizes the situation.

IX. The faithfulness of Christ and communal living (5:13–6:10). In 5:13–6:10 Paul finally depicts the positive content of the faithfulness of Christ for the Galatians. This section, in which Paul focuses on how the Galatians live communally, has been his driving focus all along. Not only must he offer something in place of the law for self-mastery in order to wrench the Galatians from the influence of the opposing teachers, but also Paul considers it absolutely necessary for the Galatians to live together in ways embodying Christ’s other-oriented, cross-shaped faithfulness (2:19–20; 4:19; 5:13–6:10). Paul does not view the law simply as a neutral, ineffectual means to self-mastery; rather, he thinks that the law will positively work death, slavery, and irrational passions, the things that would bar the Galatians from inheriting the kingdom of God (5:22). Thus, 5:13–6:10 is the most important part of the letter for Paul. All his earlier arguments serve his purposes here.

Paul begins his positive sketch of the faithfulness of Christ in 5:13–15 by talking about their freedom in Christ (5:1). This freedom from the law by no means implies freedom from the obligation to live faithfully. In fact, this freedom paradoxically means freedom for the Galatians to become slaves to one another through love (5:13). This is what Paul means by the cross-shaped faithfulness of Christ defining God’s people. This is what Paul means when he writes that he longs for Christ to be formed in them (4:19). Christ’s faithfulness redefines the law itself, such that becoming slaves to one another through love by loving your neighbor fulfills the whole law (5:14; 6:2). In 5:13–14 Paul thus surprisingly informs the Galatians that freedom in Christ means other-oriented, love-driven (cf. 5:6), cross-shaped freedom. Cross-shaped faithfulness leading them to become slaves to one another through love is the only antidote to their biting and devouring one another (5:15), classic Greco-Roman language for describing the control of irrational passions.

Paul gets more specific in 5:16–25, explicitly moving his discussion within the discourse of self-mastery. His earlier arguments dissociating the Spirit and Christ’s faithfulness from the law inform this passage, as does Paul’s implicit association of the law and the opposing teachers with “flesh” in 4:29. Only by the Spirit can the Galatians overcome the desires of the flesh (5:16–17). In 5:18–19 Paul makes clear his association of the law with the desires of the flesh, especially in 5:19, where he speaks of the “works of the flesh,” an obvious play on his frequent phrase “works of the law.” The works of the flesh in 5:19–21 read like a catalog of the vices with which broader Greco-Roman moral discourse characterizes people who lack self-mastery. People who engage in such vices, who lack the struggle to self-mastery empowered by the Spirit, “will not inherit the kingdom of God” (5:21). Paul then spells out the positive content of the faithfulness of Christ for the Galatians in terms of the fruit of the Spirit. He concludes this list of virtues, which characterize people who have the Spirit, with enkrateia, “self-mastery” (5:22–23). He continues, “And the ones who belong to Christ have crucified the flesh, with its passions and desires” (5:24). Paul’s language here seems reminiscent of his earlier self-representation as one who has been crucified with Christ (2:19–20; see also 6:14–15). The Spirit, who belongs exclusively to those who are God’s children through Christ’s faithfulness and not the law (3:14; 4:4–6), empowers the Galatians to attain self-mastery. Not only does the law fail to help them attain self-mastery, but also, as part of the old “evil” age, it works with the desires of the flesh to produce everything contrary to self-mastery, everything that disqualifies people from inheriting the kingdom of God.

Paul continues in 5:25–6:10, stressing the way of the Spirit and Christ’s cruciform faithfulness. In 6:6–10 Paul underlines the ultimate importance of the Galatians living in accordance with the Spirit and not the flesh. For Paul, this does not imply that salvation and self-mastery result from the Galatians’ own autonomous effort. That would miss the point entirely. Only Christ’s faithfulness and the Spirit can bring about the cross-shaped lives and self-mastery of which Paul speaks. Apart from Christ’s faithfulness and the Spirit, the Galatians would remain people mastered by their passions and desires and cut off from God’s salvation and blessings, since they would not be Abraham’s descendants in Christ. At the same time, Paul writes the letter with such passion because he is convinced that where Christ’s other-oriented, cross-shaped faithfulness and self-mastery do not characterize people, God’s saving blessings are absent as well. Thus Paul “is again in the anguish of childbirth” until Christ is formed in them (4:19).

X. Conclusion and summary (6:11–18). Paul concludes in 6:11–18, summarizing most of his main points. The law and circumcision now count for nothing; only faithfulness working through love and new creation in Christ count for anything (5:6; 6:15).

For Paul in Galatians, the other-oriented, cross-shaped faithfulness of Christ offers a more concrete communal identity and practical way to life than the law ever could. The faithfulness of Christ and Spirit define the Galatians as a people of the new creation. Justification in Galatians involves more than the traditional doctrine. It involves the unification associated with the fruit of the Spirit, not the division and strife of the works of the flesh/law. It relates to and establishes the conditions for the radical and tangible other-oriented and cross-shaped communal faithfulness (of Christ) that must define God’s people.

Time refers to both the real and the perceived passage of events in sequence. It is important to note that “perceived” and “real” need not be the same. For example, Jacob worked for seven years in order to marry Rebekah, “but they seemed like only a few days to him because of his love for her” (Gen. 29:20 [cf. 2 Pet. 3:8]). Jacob’s perception of time clearly was distinct from the real period of time that passed.

The Biblical Concept of Time

Time, as the sequential ordering of events that occur in space, pervades both human life and the biblical record of God’s dealings with the universe. The Bible recounts God’s plan for his creation, a plan with a beginning and an end, between which elements of the plan unfold in chronological sequence throughout history. The biblical concept of time is distinct from the cyclical concept found in some other religions, both in the ancient Near East and elsewhere. History thus moves toward a divinely predetermined goal through divinely appointed events that occur in sequence at appointed times according to God’s plan. Since God’s purposes for creation are expressed through time, the major points in his plan are apparent in a broad chronological sweep, beginning with creation, ending with judgment and the new creation, and centered upon the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus (cf. Mark 1:15).

That God acts within history to bring about his purposes is highlighted by the use of temporal language to make reference to events that have taken place in the past (Exod. 12:1–3) and are yet to take place (in particular through the use of expressions such as “the last day[s]” in, e.g., Isa. 2:2; Jer. 23:20; John 6:39–54). The emphasis therefore is not on some spiritual or otherworldly domain in which specifically religious experiences and events take place, a domain distinct from the physical world in which we live. Rather, the emphasis is on the way in which God directs and shapes history in order to bring about his purposes.

Furthermore, the Bible acknowledges that all events in history fall within the purview of God’s sovereignty through the acknowledgment that there is an appropriate time appointed for them (Eccles. 3:1–11; Ps. 31:15). God’s sovereignty over time extends to the future, and thus the prophets announce the future actions of God at certain times (Isa. 60:22; Ezek. 22:3; 30:3; Dan. 8:17). More specifically, definite times for the end and final judgment are established (Matt. 8:29), although the timing of the end is known only to the Father (Matt. 24:36; Mark 13:33).

Modern science treats time and space as related and essential components of the physical universe and thus of God’s creation. Since, therefore, time is created, it is not thereby immediately clear precisely what God’s relationship to time is, nor is this an issue directly addressed in the Bible. Although it is common to insist that since time is part of creation, God exists outside of time, it is not possible to deduce from this observation alone that God exists without some analogous notion of time within a divine frame of reference. Nor is the question readily resolved by appeal to biblical texts, for although a number of passages reflect upon God’s knowledge of the end from the beginning and speak of God predestining and foreknowing (terms that implicitly have temporal connotations), these can be read as either reflecting God’s interaction with the temporal aspect of the created universe or as divine accommodation to human language in order to communicate correctly with temporal human beings throughout history. Consequently, no definitive answer to these philosophical questions is available, and so proposals relating to the issue cannot be judged to provide certainty in these matters. All that can be said with certainty is that the Bible presents certain propositions that affirm time’s subservience to God.

Measuring Time

The Bible makes reference to a variety of different measurements of periods of time. These include Jubilees (Lev. 25:10), generations (Deut. 2:14), Sabbath years (Lev. 25:4), years, months, days, and hours. There are no shorter periods of time described by any defined measures in the Bible, reflecting a culture in which timekeeping was not dominated by devices that afforded such determinations (although terms for nonspecific short periods of time do exist, such as rega’, a “moment” [Exod. 33:5; Isa. 26:20]).

A number of passages appear to suggest that a day was considered to begin in the morning and end the following morning (e.g., Deut. 28:66–67; 1 Sam. 30:12; Isa. 28:19; Jer. 33:20). However, there are also texts that seem to suggest a different division of days, specifically the creation account of Gen. 1 (but see also Gen. 19:34; Lev. 7:15; Judg. 19:4–9; 1 Sam. 19:11). Nehemiah 13:19 has the day begin at sunset. By NT times, a full day generally was reckoned as beginning at sunset.

Days were also divided into parts. The Mesopotamian system for dividing the night into three watches appears paralleled in Exod. 14:24; Judg. 7:19; 1 Sam. 11:11, although by NT times the night was divided into four watches, paralleling the Roman and Egyptian practice (Matt. 14:25; Mark 13:35). More precise, shorter divisions of time tended to be later innovations; for example, the OT does not typically use an hour as a measure of time. Nonetheless, there were in the ancient world means by which shorter periods could be measured, such as sundials and water clocks, examples of which can be found dating to the second millennium BC in Mesopotamia and Egypt. The only possible reference to such a device in the Bible appears in Isa. 38:8, where the “stairway of Ahaz” is thought by some to have been used to measure time in some way.

When the LXX uses the Greek word hōra, it refers not to a period of sixty minutes, but usually to a point in time (e.g., Exod. 9:18). In other early Greek literature the term can refer to a variety of periods of time, including a season and a year. By the NT period, however, the division of the day into twenty-four hours had become normative (cf. John 11:9), and the NT makes numerous reference to times based on the hour of the day.

The week was a well-established measure of time, reflected in the creation story as well as in the celebration of the Sabbath. Months were based on a lunar calendar (the Hebrew words for “month,” yerakh and khodesh, are also used to refer to the moon) (see Calendar). Beyond years, the Bible also uses generations as a measure of the passage of time. Finally, other measures less readily associated with specific periods of time are used in the Bible, in particular in some apocalyptic prophetic texts such as Daniel.

Eternity

“Eternity” is another time-related concept that occupies an important place in the Bible. The modern scientific realization that time is part of creation has strengthened the notion, long affirmed by various philosophies, that “eternity” represents that which is outside time and apart from it and so is particularly associated with God’s existence. In contrast to this, however, when the Bible makes reference to “eternity,” it invariably has a temporal aspect, referring either to the distant past, the distant future, or else the entire expanse of time from distant past to distant future (e.g., Exod. 15:18; Ps. 9:5; Mic. 4:5). What is clear, however, is that God’s relationship to the temporal aspect of the universe does reflect that of one who is outside the constraints of that time (e.g., Ps. 90:2; 2 Pet. 3:8).

NT textual criticism is the science of discerning the reading of the original Greek text of the NT. NT textual criticism is relatively different from the textual criticism of the Hebrew OT, since the two Testaments were copied in substantially different ways, resulting in quite different issues and types of copying problems.

Textual criticism is necessary for two reasons: (1) none of the original texts for any of the books of the NT (the autographs) have survived; (2) all the surviving copies that we do have differ from one another in at least minor ways. NT textual criticism is the discipline of examining all the readings found in the surviving copies (including other early translations and the writings of the church fathers) in order to discern the most-likely original text of the NT.

In many ways there is nothing surprising or unusual about this activity. This same discipline is used in the case of all ancient documents where the original no longer exists and there are multiple, but different, surviving copies. What sets the textual criticism of the Bible apart from the textual criticism of Plato, Aristotle, or any other extrabiblical author is the importance of Scripture. It is absolutely crucial that scholars be as accurate as possible in discerning the words of the Bible. Present-day doctrinal statements about the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture usually focus on how it is the actual documents written by the original authors of the Bible (the autographs) that were inspired and inerrant, and not necessarily each and every copy or translation that was ever made. At the same time, NT textual criticism provides strong and ample evidence that the standard translations of today are reasonable copies of the original texts and therefore are inspired and authoritative.

Another reality that sets the textual criticism of the Bible apart from the textual criticism of any other ancient document involves the large number of manuscripts containing all or parts of the NT. Aristotle’s writings (384–322 BC) have survived in only five ancient manuscripts, the earliest of which was last copied around AD 1100. Thus, the manuscript support for discerning the proper wording of Aristotle’s writings is five manuscripts, the earliest of which was copied some fourteen hundred years after its original composition. The NT, by contrast, has been preserved in almost 5,500 handwritten Greek manuscripts, the earliest of which may be only decades removed from the actual composition of the NT. In addition, there are tens of thousands of other manuscripts of the NT translated into other languages of the early church (especially Latin, Syriac, and Coptic) and perhaps something like a million quotations and allusions to the NT in the writings of the church fathers. The amount of manuscript support for the Bible is without parallel when compared with any other ancient writing, thus providing a firm foundation for the trustworthiness of the Bible.

New Testament Manuscripts

If all the surviving Greek manuscripts of the NT from all the museums and ancient-book rooms around the world could be gathered together and examined, there would be a number of obvious differences. For one thing, these manuscripts are written on different materials. The oldest manuscripts include some 116 papyri written on papyrus sheets (made from the stems of a papyrus plant pressed together to make a flat writing surface) and date from as early as AD 125 until the eighth century. Virtually all the rest of the hand-copied manuscripts were written on parchment (leather from animal skins stretched thin) and range in date from the second century to as late as the sixteenth century.

Another significant difference involves the style of handwriting. Here there are two primary categories: uncials (majuscules) and minuscules. The three hundred or so uncial manuscripts were written using an early style of “capital letters” (comparable to hand-printing a text in all capital letters) and range in date from the second century to as late as the tenth or eleventh century, with the majority between the fourth and tenth centuries. The 2,800 or so minuscule manuscripts were written in a later style of semicursive using primarily “lowercase letters” (more comparable to cursive penmanship today) and range in date from the ninth to the sixteenth centuries.

A third basic difference involves the arrangement of the material. In addition to standard biblical texts arranged in regular canonical order, almost half (about 2,200) of the manuscripts of the Greek NT are lectionaries composed of series of short passages designed to be read on a fixed regular schedule, almost like the responsive readings found in many modern hymnals. These range in date from the ninth to the sixteenth centuries and cover the vast majority of the passages in the NT, and thus they constitute another significant source of information about the proper reading of the original text.

Other obvious differences in outward appearance involve the scope of the original work and how well it has been preserved. Only a small number of manuscripts were written to encompass the entire Bible, including the OT (usually the Greek translation called the “Septuagint”), the NT, and frequently various books of the Apocrypha as well. Other manuscripts were designed to include only the NT. However, the vast majority of the surviving Greek manuscripts of the NT originally included only a portion of the NT (due primarily to the cost in materials and labor), most often a collection of the four Gospels, or the Pauline Epistles, or some other smaller subset of the NT. Still another reality is that many ancient manuscripts may have lost pages or the binding may have broken, leaving only incomplete sections of the original manuscript. Some NT manuscripts have survived only in the form of torn fragments, sometimes only a portion of a page in size.

Different Readings

Different readings among these manuscripts fit into two broad categories: unintentional changes and deliberate corrections. Unintentional changes took place when a scribe was genuinely trying to make a good copy and due to simple human error failed to read a letter clearly, did not hear a word clearly (assuming that the text was being dictated aloud), inadvertently wrote a homonym instead of the right word, lost the proper place on the page, or mistakenly assumed that some marginal note on the page belonged in the text. Deliberate corrections were also a recognized part of the work of a scribe whereby a scribe tried to make a text read better or more clearly. Although some of the early church fathers warn of heretics making deliberate changes in the text for theological reasons (actual instances of this are hard to document), sincere Christians sometimes sought to improve the theological clarity or style of the text.

There are various estimates of the number of places where different manuscripts have different readings. If one is taking stock of any and all differences regardless of how minor, then there are more than ten thousand different places in the text that have textual problems. The Textus Receptus, or Majority Text (underlying the KJV translation), has some five to six thousand differences from the Greek texts underlying most other, more recent English translations, although most of these are minor differences in word order, spelling, and so forth and make no practical difference in content. The standard scholarly United Bible Societies Greek NT includes a discussion of something like 1,440 sets of variant readings that were deemed sufficiently significant for inclusion in the critical apparatus. A contemporary translation such as the NIV lists over a hundred specific instances of textual uncertainty in the NT of sufficient significance to provide a possible alternative translation.

Still another question involves the theological significance of these differences among the surviving manuscripts. Although this can be a potentially threatening topic, it should be noted at the beginning that no area of Christian doctrine stands or falls because of possible textual problems. The entire foundation of theology is firm and certain. Nevertheless, there are perhaps several dozen places where textual differences have definite implications for either doctrine or practice. For example, does 1 Tim. 3:16 help establish the deity of Christ by referring to Christ as “God” (KJV), or is “he” (most modern translations) the correct reading? Or when we quote the Lord’s Prayer, should we include the final words “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory forever. Amen” (from the KJV)? Or, for still another issue, is it proper to preach and teach from the resurrection stories in Mark 16:9–20 or the story of the woman caught in adultery in John 7:53–8:11 (both of which are absent from early and reliable manuscripts)? English versions answer these questions differently.

However, a large number of textual problems are more minor in nature and involve little if any practical differences in application. For example, in 1 John 1:4 was John focusing on “your” joy or “our” joy? But by far the largest category involves textual differences that make no discernible differences at all in our English translations. Examples include differences in Greek word order, a choice between certain Greek tenses, similar grammatical constructions, the usage of synonyms, and some spelling differences. Differences in this final category are so minor that often they cannot be detected in English translations.

Different Families or Text Types

Another difference involves the “text type,” or family of manuscripts. Certain manuscripts with similar readings have a family resemblance with other similar manuscripts. The issue here involves patterns of copying errors among these manuscripts. In the late nineteenth century, two British scholars, B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, developed what they identified as the genealogical method for NT textual criticism. One component of this approach involves the recognition of at least three different “families” of related manuscripts presumably related to three different geographical areas of the early church: Byzantine or Syrian manuscripts (based in Syria or the later Byzantine Empire in Turkey), Alexandrian manuscripts (based in Egypt), and Western manuscripts (based more in Italy and North Africa). This classification system involves generalizations comparable to discerning a person’s nationality and ethnic background by various physical features. Some manuscripts are relatively easy to classify using this system, others are more difficult, and still others turn out to be quite mixed in nature. Yet there is a certain helpfulness to this system.

Certain conclusions can be drawn from this classification system. The vast majority of manuscripts (some 80 to 90 percent) are the Byzantine text type. These include virtually all the minuscules and lectionaries and tend to be relatively later in date. The remaining 10 to 20 percent of the manuscripts tend to be earlier and include the Alexandrian manuscripts, the handful of Western manuscripts, and a good number of early manuscripts that cannot be easily placed in either of these two categories. The Alexandrian readings tend to be briefer and more succinct in style, while the Western readings tend to be more unusual and eccentric, in contrast to the Byzantine ones, which tend to be more polished and harmonizing.

Applying Textual Criticism

There are different approaches to NT textual criticism. The two primary ones are (1) the King James/Majority Text approach associated with the KJV, and (2) the contemporary scholarly approach followed by virtually all other standard translations beginning with Westcott and Hort’s English Revised Version of 1881. Both approaches are built around an understanding of the history of the text. The Majority Text argument is built on the assumption that the original reading will have been preserved in the largest number of surviving manuscripts, in this case the relatively later Byzantine manuscripts. The contemporary scholarly approach assumes a so-called genealogical method whereby the Majority Text of the Byzantine manuscripts is believed to be the later “offspring” of the earlier Alexandrian and Western manuscripts and therefore more or less irrelevant for discovering the original text. Thus, this method essentially rejects the Byzantine manuscripts in favor of the earlier ones, especially the Alexandrian ones. Manuscripts are still counted and dated, but priority is given to the earlier manuscripts and to readings found in several different text types.

Textual Criticism, Old Testament–Centuries separate the earliest attested Hebrew manuscripts (MSS) and the canonical form of the biblical text. The transmission of the Hebrew Bible in many ancient and medieval sources reveals differences between the texts; consequently, textual criticism involves the comparison and analysis of those textual differences in both ancient sources and modern printed editions of the OT. Text critics collect from MSS and other textual witnesses all the details in which these texts differ from one another and then evaluate those differences to arrive at the most accurate original reading. Some of these differences were created in the course of textual transmission, while others are the result of scribal additions and the processes that created readings and texts over the centuries. In many cases, these differences are minimal and exert no significant theological or interpretational influence on the text itself.

Goals and Assumptions

The text critic seeks to recover the processes of the text’s written transmission so as to restore it not to the most ancient form or earliest literary strand of the biblical corpus, nor to the earliest attested textual form, but rather to the copy that contained the finished literary product and that stood at the beginning of the textual transmission process. Consequently, the text critic accepts the notion of a single, authentic text (Urtext) from which all extant MSS of a specific book have evolved rather than the existence of ancient parallel texts. Text critics identify and resolve textual errors in the text by revealing the history of their emergence, explaining how those errors or inconsistencies occurred. They consider and evaluate deviant or differing readings from the textual apparatus (notes written at the bottom of the printed critical versions) of the Masoretic Text (MT), such as Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia and R. Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica. Textual scholars remove or correct readings from extant or existing final forms of MSS and sometimes, in the absence of manuscript evidence, conjecturally emend or “suggest translational alternatives” for the text when the extant evidence defies a reasonable or clear reading. The most recent work by the Hebrew University Bible Project (HUBP) eliminates all scholarly conjectures proposed without manuscript evidence from its consideration in the text-critical process.

Discrepancies between textual witnesses to the OT include differences in book, chapter, and verse divisions, as well as layout and chapter sequence. The nature of scribal transmission assumes that although the scribes carefully copied the sacred texts, errors occasionally occurred. These textual corruptions may be unintentional, such as the reduplication of a letter or a word, confusion between letters that resemble one another, wrong word divisions, incorrect vocalization, or the accidental reversal of two letters. Occasionally a word may have been omitted, or words from marginal or interlinear comments (called a “gloss”) may have been inserted in the main text. In the case of intentional corruptions or alterations, scribes attempted to harmonize the morphology or grammar of a text, give explanations (also called “conflation”), incorporate material from parallel passages, substitute euphemistic words or phrases in place of offensive material, and, rarely, alter the texts theologically when the original wording seemed disrespectful to God.

Text Families and Translations

Some scholars theorize that the Hebrew MSS evolved from three local textual families arranged geographically, though more-recent scholarship seems to refute this view as simplistic. According to this theory, during the fifth century BC two local texts developed independently of each other in Babylon and Palestine. A third, the Alexandrian family, broke off from the Old Palestinian text and eventually served as the “source” or “model” for the translation of the Septuagint (LXX) between 250 BC and AD 150. The Samaritan Pentateuch resulted from the Palestinian family and, combined with the Babylonian tradition, formed the official corpus of the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets. The corpus of the Latter Prophets derived solely from the Palestinian text. This combination of texts formed the authoritative basis for the MT. The Leningrad Codex (AD 1009) is the oldest preserved complete Hebrew Bible, providing one of the best examples of the MT. The 1947 discovery of the Qumran scrolls gave text-critical scholars access to customary scribal activity and affirmed the existence of pluriform, or multiple, text types. These scrolls, transmitted during the third through first centuries BC, represented all the OT books except Esther and provided a Hebrew text witness that reinforced the relative veracity of the MT.

Ancient translations, such as the LXX, provided the source text from which the Old Greek, Lucian, Eusebius, and other Greek versions developed. In addition, the LXX formed the basis of the Old Latin, Vulgate, and Syriac versions as well as the Targumim. The importance of the elementary text-critical principle “Texts do not count, they weigh,” which forms the basic assumption when evaluating textual witnesses and comparing potential readings, becomes clearer in light of these developments. For example, a text critic would consider a reading in a Qumran witness as the equivalent or superior to readings attested in the LXX and its offspring texts.

Weighing Variant Readings

A consideration of variant readings involves all Hebrew and reconstructed details that differ from an accepted form of the MT, including additions, subtractions, letter and word differentiation, differences in word division, vocalization (or pronunciation), and word sequence. Scholars denote the MT as the textus receptus, or “received text,” which forms the translation base then of the Hebrew Scriptures. In some cases, critics of the OT believe that the MSS and versions reflect varying stages or versions in the editing of a final text. For example, 2 Sam. 22 and Ps. 18 are parallel texts in slightly different forms. Text critics acknowledge the existence of alternate forms of identical texts that were equally acceptable to the ancient poet by assuming that during the time of the OT, authors modernized or contemporized texts in an appropriate manner. One text does not have to be superior to the other; instead, both are legitimate, as in the case of Isa. 2:2–4 and Mic. 4:1–5.

OT text critics explore explanations for contradictory or different readings among text traditions, evaluate the weight of the textual evidence, and analyze a host of readings to determine which reading best explains the others or harmonizes with the literary evidence. In addition, text scholars ask whether a particular reading is grammatically acceptable and whether the word or phrase fits into the syntactic context of the sentence and the scope of the wider passage. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, text critics generally prefer the shorter reading because throughout history texts have a tendency to expand. In addition, when the MT and all other witnesses offer a text that is unobjectionable, makes sense, and has been preserved without a variant, scholars often assume that it is the “original text” preserved by the tradition and should be accepted. Furthermore, in the case of two alternative readings, if an explanation is available as to the manner in which one of these may have arisen from the other, then scholars consider the explicable reading as the weaker of the two.

The complexity of the text-critical enterprise, particularly when applied to the Hebrew Scriptures, requires a combination of intuition, skill, experience, careful attention to detail, and facility in cognate languages. The absence of extrabiblical Hebrew texts makes the OT textual analysis more difficult, since the scholar has a limited corpus of material from which to draw conclusions. OT text criticism is an ongoing process that will engage biblical scholars for years to come.

A journey to a religious site. In biblical times, Jerusalem was a prominent destination of pilgrimage, as implied in the law of cultic centralization in Deut. 12:13–14. Several of the prophets envision a future age in which the nations travel to Jerusalem for instruction (e.g., Isa. 2; Mic. 4).

Jesus made several pilgrimages to Jerusalem in connection with major Jewish feasts. His parents took him to Jerusalem for the Passover, as was their custom (Luke 2:41–42). As an adult, Jesus continued to make this journey. The three journeys of Jesus to Jerusalem recorded in the Gospel of John are the chief evidence for the tradition that his ministry lasted three years (John 2:13; 5:1; 12:1). Jesus also traveled to Jerusalem for the Feast of Booths (John 7:10) and the Feast of Dedication (John 10:22).

Paul’s final journey to Jerusalem, which eventuated in his arrest, was for the purpose of attending the Jewish Feast of Pentecost there (Acts 20:16). This festival was also responsible for the presence of many foreigners in Jerusalem in the days of the early church (Acts 2:1).

In a broader sense, and especially in some older English translations, pilgrimage can refer to a period of residence outside one’s proper homeland (sojourning). This usage recalls the prominent biblical theme of sojourning, which pertains to the patriarchs (Gen. 47:9), Moses (Acts 7:29), the Israelites (Deut. 10:19), as well as several other biblical figures. In the NT, this aspect of the Israelite experience (see Heb. 11:13) is applied to Jesus (Matt. 8:20; Luke 9:58) and, in a figurative sense, to Christian communities (Phil. 3:20; 1 Pet. 2:11).

An instrument and process used by farmers to break up ground in preparation for planting (Isa. 28:24; Hos. 10:11). The plow was made of wood (1 Kings 19:21), and the point was covered with a metal plowshare (Isa. 2:4; Joel 3:10) that required occasional sharpening (1 Sam. 13:20–21). Usually, plowmen used pairs of oxen (1 Kings 19:19; Job 1:14) to pull the plow, although one might harness single animals or other animals such as donkeys (Deut. 22:10), depending on the situation and resources. The busy time of plowing at the beginning of the rainy season (around November) required hard work (Exod. 34:21; Prov. 20:4) and commitment (Luke 9:62). One also finds the term “plow” used figuratively for creating or doing something (making trouble [Job 4:8]), often with the negative ideas of destruction (Jer. 26:18) or punishment (Ps. 129:3).

NT textual criticism is the science of discerning the reading of the original Greek text of the NT. NT textual criticism is relatively different from the textual criticism of the Hebrew OT, since the two Testaments were copied in substantially different ways, resulting in quite different issues and types of copying problems.

Textual criticism is necessary for two reasons: (1) none of the original texts for any of the books of the NT (the autographs) have survived; (2) all the surviving copies that we do have differ from one another in at least minor ways. NT textual criticism is the discipline of examining all the readings found in the surviving copies (including other early translations and the writings of the church fathers) in order to discern the most-likely original text of the NT.

In many ways there is nothing surprising or unusual about this activity. This same discipline is used in the case of all ancient documents where the original no longer exists and there are multiple, but different, surviving copies. What sets the textual criticism of the Bible apart from the textual criticism of Plato, Aristotle, or any other extrabiblical author is the importance of Scripture. It is absolutely crucial that scholars be as accurate as possible in discerning the words of the Bible. Present-day doctrinal statements about the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture usually focus on how it is the actual documents written by the original authors of the Bible (the autographs) that were inspired and inerrant, and not necessarily each and every copy or translation that was ever made. At the same time, NT textual criticism provides strong and ample evidence that the standard translations of today are reasonable copies of the original texts and therefore are inspired and authoritative.

Another reality that sets the textual criticism of the Bible apart from the textual criticism of any other ancient document involves the large number of manuscripts containing all or parts of the NT. Aristotle’s writings (384–322 BC) have survived in only five ancient manuscripts, the earliest of which was last copied around AD 1100. Thus, the manuscript support for discerning the proper wording of Aristotle’s writings is five manuscripts, the earliest of which was copied some fourteen hundred years after its original composition. The NT, by contrast, has been preserved in almost 5,500 handwritten Greek manuscripts, the earliest of which may be only decades removed from the actual composition of the NT. In addition, there are tens of thousands of other manuscripts of the NT translated into other languages of the early church (especially Latin, Syriac, and Coptic) and perhaps something like a million quotations and allusions to the NT in the writings of the church fathers. The amount of manuscript support for the Bible is without parallel when compared with any other ancient writing, thus providing a firm foundation for the trustworthiness of the Bible.

New Testament Manuscripts

If all the surviving Greek manuscripts of the NT from all the museums and ancient-book rooms around the world could be gathered together and examined, there would be a number of obvious differences. For one thing, these manuscripts are written on different materials. The oldest manuscripts include some 116 papyri written on papyrus sheets (made from the stems of a papyrus plant pressed together to make a flat writing surface) and date from as early as AD 125 until the eighth century. Virtually all the rest of the hand-copied manuscripts were written on parchment (leather from animal skins stretched thin) and range in date from the second century to as late as the sixteenth century.

Another significant difference involves the style of handwriting. Here there are two primary categories: uncials (majuscules) and minuscules. The three hundred or so uncial manuscripts were written using an early style of “capital letters” (comparable to hand-printing a text in all capital letters) and range in date from the second century to as late as the tenth or eleventh century, with the majority between the fourth and tenth centuries. The 2,800 or so minuscule manuscripts were written in a later style of semicursive using primarily “lowercase letters” (more comparable to cursive penmanship today) and range in date from the ninth to the sixteenth centuries.

A third basic difference involves the arrangement of the material. In addition to standard biblical texts arranged in regular canonical order, almost half (about 2,200) of the manuscripts of the Greek NT are lectionaries composed of series of short passages designed to be read on a fixed regular schedule, almost like the responsive readings found in many modern hymnals. These range in date from the ninth to the sixteenth centuries and cover the vast majority of the passages in the NT, and thus they constitute another significant source of information about the proper reading of the original text.

Other obvious differences in outward appearance involve the scope of the original work and how well it has been preserved. Only a small number of manuscripts were written to encompass the entire Bible, including the OT (usually the Greek translation called the “Septuagint”), the NT, and frequently various books of the Apocrypha as well. Other manuscripts were designed to include only the NT. However, the vast majority of the surviving Greek manuscripts of the NT originally included only a portion of the NT (due primarily to the cost in materials and labor), most often a collection of the four Gospels, or the Pauline Epistles, or some other smaller subset of the NT. Still another reality is that many ancient manuscripts may have lost pages or the binding may have broken, leaving only incomplete sections of the original manuscript. Some NT manuscripts have survived only in the form of torn fragments, sometimes only a portion of a page in size.

Different Readings

Different readings among these manuscripts fit into two broad categories: unintentional changes and deliberate corrections. Unintentional changes took place when a scribe was genuinely trying to make a good copy and due to simple human error failed to read a letter clearly, did not hear a word clearly (assuming that the text was being dictated aloud), inadvertently wrote a homonym instead of the right word, lost the proper place on the page, or mistakenly assumed that some marginal note on the page belonged in the text. Deliberate corrections were also a recognized part of the work of a scribe whereby a scribe tried to make a text read better or more clearly. Although some of the early church fathers warn of heretics making deliberate changes in the text for theological reasons (actual instances of this are hard to document), sincere Christians sometimes sought to improve the theological clarity or style of the text.

There are various estimates of the number of places where different manuscripts have different readings. If one is taking stock of any and all differences regardless of how minor, then there are more than ten thousand different places in the text that have textual problems. The Textus Receptus, or Majority Text (underlying the KJV translation), has some five to six thousand differences from the Greek texts underlying most other, more recent English translations, although most of these are minor differences in word order, spelling, and so forth and make no practical difference in content. The standard scholarly United Bible Societies Greek NT includes a discussion of something like 1,440 sets of variant readings that were deemed sufficiently significant for inclusion in the critical apparatus. A contemporary translation such as the NIV lists over a hundred specific instances of textual uncertainty in the NT of sufficient significance to provide a possible alternative translation.

Still another question involves the theological significance of these differences among the surviving manuscripts. Although this can be a potentially threatening topic, it should be noted at the beginning that no area of Christian doctrine stands or falls because of possible textual problems. The entire foundation of theology is firm and certain. Nevertheless, there are perhaps several dozen places where textual differences have definite implications for either doctrine or practice. For example, does 1 Tim. 3:16 help establish the deity of Christ by referring to Christ as “God” (KJV), or is “he” (most modern translations) the correct reading? Or when we quote the Lord’s Prayer, should we include the final words “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory forever. Amen” (from the KJV)? Or, for still another issue, is it proper to preach and teach from the resurrection stories in Mark 16:9–20 or the story of the woman caught in adultery in John 7:53–8:11 (both of which are absent from early and reliable manuscripts)? English versions answer these questions differently.

However, a large number of textual problems are more minor in nature and involve little if any practical differences in application. For example, in 1 John 1:4 was John focusing on “your” joy or “our” joy? But by far the largest category involves textual differences that make no discernible differences at all in our English translations. Examples include differences in Greek word order, a choice between certain Greek tenses, similar grammatical constructions, the usage of synonyms, and some spelling differences. Differences in this final category are so minor that often they cannot be detected in English translations.

Different Families or Text Types

Another difference involves the “text type,” or family of manuscripts. Certain manuscripts with similar readings have a family resemblance with other similar manuscripts. The issue here involves patterns of copying errors among these manuscripts. In the late nineteenth century, two British scholars, B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, developed what they identified as the genealogical method for NT textual criticism. One component of this approach involves the recognition of at least three different “families” of related manuscripts presumably related to three different geographical areas of the early church: Byzantine or Syrian manuscripts (based in Syria or the later Byzantine Empire in Turkey), Alexandrian manuscripts (based in Egypt), and Western manuscripts (based more in Italy and North Africa). This classification system involves generalizations comparable to discerning a person’s nationality and ethnic background by various physical features. Some manuscripts are relatively easy to classify using this system, others are more difficult, and still others turn out to be quite mixed in nature. Yet there is a certain helpfulness to this system.

Certain conclusions can be drawn from this classification system. The vast majority of manuscripts (some 80 to 90 percent) are the Byzantine text type. These include virtually all the minuscules and lectionaries and tend to be relatively later in date. The remaining 10 to 20 percent of the manuscripts tend to be earlier and include the Alexandrian manuscripts, the handful of Western manuscripts, and a good number of early manuscripts that cannot be easily placed in either of these two categories. The Alexandrian readings tend to be briefer and more succinct in style, while the Western readings tend to be more unusual and eccentric, in contrast to the Byzantine ones, which tend to be more polished and harmonizing.

Applying Textual Criticism

There are different approaches to NT textual criticism. The two primary ones are (1) the King James/Majority Text approach associated with the KJV, and (2) the contemporary scholarly approach followed by virtually all other standard translations beginning with Westcott and Hort’s English Revised Version of 1881. Both approaches are built around an understanding of the history of the text. The Majority Text argument is built on the assumption that the original reading will have been preserved in the largest number of surviving manuscripts, in this case the relatively later Byzantine manuscripts. The contemporary scholarly approach assumes a so-called genealogical method whereby the Majority Text of the Byzantine manuscripts is believed to be the later “offspring” of the earlier Alexandrian and Western manuscripts and therefore more or less irrelevant for discovering the original text. Thus, this method essentially rejects the Byzantine manuscripts in favor of the earlier ones, especially the Alexandrian ones. Manuscripts are still counted and dated, but priority is given to the earlier manuscripts and to readings found in several different text types.

Textual Criticism, Old Testament–Centuries separate the earliest attested Hebrew manuscripts (MSS) and the canonical form of the biblical text. The transmission of the Hebrew Bible in many ancient and medieval sources reveals differences between the texts; consequently, textual criticism involves the comparison and analysis of those textual differences in both ancient sources and modern printed editions of the OT. Text critics collect from MSS and other textual witnesses all the details in which these texts differ from one another and then evaluate those differences to arrive at the most accurate original reading. Some of these differences were created in the course of textual transmission, while others are the result of scribal additions and the processes that created readings and texts over the centuries. In many cases, these differences are minimal and exert no significant theological or interpretational influence on the text itself.

Goals and Assumptions

The text critic seeks to recover the processes of the text’s written transmission so as to restore it not to the most ancient form or earliest literary strand of the biblical corpus, nor to the earliest attested textual form, but rather to the copy that contained the finished literary product and that stood at the beginning of the textual transmission process. Consequently, the text critic accepts the notion of a single, authentic text (Urtext) from which all extant MSS of a specific book have evolved rather than the existence of ancient parallel texts. Text critics identify and resolve textual errors in the text by revealing the history of their emergence, explaining how those errors or inconsistencies occurred. They consider and evaluate deviant or differing readings from the textual apparatus (notes written at the bottom of the printed critical versions) of the Masoretic Text (MT), such as Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia and R. Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica. Textual scholars remove or correct readings from extant or existing final forms of MSS and sometimes, in the absence of manuscript evidence, conjecturally emend or “suggest translational alternatives” for the text when the extant evidence defies a reasonable or clear reading. The most recent work by the Hebrew University Bible Project (HUBP) eliminates all scholarly conjectures proposed without manuscript evidence from its consideration in the text-critical process.

Discrepancies between textual witnesses to the OT include differences in book, chapter, and verse divisions, as well as layout and chapter sequence. The nature of scribal transmission assumes that although the scribes carefully copied the sacred texts, errors occasionally occurred. These textual corruptions may be unintentional, such as the reduplication of a letter or a word, confusion between letters that resemble one another, wrong word divisions, incorrect vocalization, or the accidental reversal of two letters. Occasionally a word may have been omitted, or words from marginal or interlinear comments (called a “gloss”) may have been inserted in the main text. In the case of intentional corruptions or alterations, scribes attempted to harmonize the morphology or grammar of a text, give explanations (also called “conflation”), incorporate material from parallel passages, substitute euphemistic words or phrases in place of offensive material, and, rarely, alter the texts theologically when the original wording seemed disrespectful to God.

Text Families and Translations

Some scholars theorize that the Hebrew MSS evolved from three local textual families arranged geographically, though more-recent scholarship seems to refute this view as simplistic. According to this theory, during the fifth century BC two local texts developed independently of each other in Babylon and Palestine. A third, the Alexandrian family, broke off from the Old Palestinian text and eventually served as the “source” or “model” for the translation of the Septuagint (LXX) between 250 BC and AD 150. The Samaritan Pentateuch resulted from the Palestinian family and, combined with the Babylonian tradition, formed the official corpus of the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets. The corpus of the Latter Prophets derived solely from the Palestinian text. This combination of texts formed the authoritative basis for the MT. The Leningrad Codex (AD 1009) is the oldest preserved complete Hebrew Bible, providing one of the best examples of the MT. The 1947 discovery of the Qumran scrolls gave text-critical scholars access to customary scribal activity and affirmed the existence of pluriform, or multiple, text types. These scrolls, transmitted during the third through first centuries BC, represented all the OT books except Esther and provided a Hebrew text witness that reinforced the relative veracity of the MT.

Ancient translations, such as the LXX, provided the source text from which the Old Greek, Lucian, Eusebius, and other Greek versions developed. In addition, the LXX formed the basis of the Old Latin, Vulgate, and Syriac versions as well as the Targumim. The importance of the elementary text-critical principle “Texts do not count, they weigh,” which forms the basic assumption when evaluating textual witnesses and comparing potential readings, becomes clearer in light of these developments. For example, a text critic would consider a reading in a Qumran witness as the equivalent or superior to readings attested in the LXX and its offspring texts.

Weighing Variant Readings

A consideration of variant readings involves all Hebrew and reconstructed details that differ from an accepted form of the MT, including additions, subtractions, letter and word differentiation, differences in word division, vocalization (or pronunciation), and word sequence. Scholars denote the MT as the textus receptus, or “received text,” which forms the translation base then of the Hebrew Scriptures. In some cases, critics of the OT believe that the MSS and versions reflect varying stages or versions in the editing of a final text. For example, 2 Sam. 22 and Ps. 18 are parallel texts in slightly different forms. Text critics acknowledge the existence of alternate forms of identical texts that were equally acceptable to the ancient poet by assuming that during the time of the OT, authors modernized or contemporized texts in an appropriate manner. One text does not have to be superior to the other; instead, both are legitimate, as in the case of Isa. 2:2–4 and Mic. 4:1–5.

OT text critics explore explanations for contradictory or different readings among text traditions, evaluate the weight of the textual evidence, and analyze a host of readings to determine which reading best explains the others or harmonizes with the literary evidence. In addition, text scholars ask whether a particular reading is grammatically acceptable and whether the word or phrase fits into the syntactic context of the sentence and the scope of the wider passage. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, text critics generally prefer the shorter reading because throughout history texts have a tendency to expand. In addition, when the MT and all other witnesses offer a text that is unobjectionable, makes sense, and has been preserved without a variant, scholars often assume that it is the “original text” preserved by the tradition and should be accepted. Furthermore, in the case of two alternative readings, if an explanation is available as to the manner in which one of these may have arisen from the other, then scholars consider the explicable reading as the weaker of the two.

The complexity of the text-critical enterprise, particularly when applied to the Hebrew Scriptures, requires a combination of intuition, skill, experience, careful attention to detail, and facility in cognate languages. The absence of extrabiblical Hebrew texts makes the OT textual analysis more difficult, since the scholar has a limited corpus of material from which to draw conclusions. OT text criticism is an ongoing process that will engage biblical scholars for years to come.

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

Materials

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

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

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

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

Types of Tools

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

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

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

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

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

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