Affliction is a condition of physical, mental, or spiritual distress, or the cause of suffering. Afflictions may be a variety of temporal, physical sufferings, such as infertility (Gen. 25:32; 1 Sam. 1:11), injustice and toil (Gen. 31:42), slavery (Exod. 1:12; 3:7, 17; 4:31; Deut. 26:6–7; Neh. 9:9), military oppression (Judg. 2:18; 10:18), loss (Ruth 1:21), displacement and mocking (2 Sam. 16:12), disease and disorders (Mark 3:10; 5:29, 34; Luke 7:21; John 5:4; Acts 28:8), and famine (Acts 7:11). Affliction may be mental or spiritual, arising from the prospects or effects of physical afflictions, feeling the futility of life (Eccles. 1:13), or concern for others in their afflictions (Isa. 63:9; 2 Cor. 2:4).

There are several different causes and reasons for affliction, but there is no simple formula for determining the cause of one’s afflictions, as Job reminds us. Clearly, Job is blameless (Job 1:1, 8; 2:3), but his friends carry on wrongly in their assumptions that his sins are to blame. The agents of affliction include God (2 Kings 17:20; Nah. 1:12), Satan and/or demons (Job 1:12; Acts 5:16), other people (Judg. 10:8; 2 Thess. 1:6), oneself (1 Kings 18:28), or the general condition of life (Job 5:7).

The reasons for affliction also vary. One reason might be called “no reason,” in that “man is born to trouble as surely as sparks fly upward” (Job 5:7). Troubles, afflictions, and sorrow just happen. In retrospect, this is a condition of living in a cursed world (Gen. 3). But this is a general consequence for the whole human race, not a punishment directed at a specific sin. The widespread afflictions of the curse appear random. In various forms they prevent us from turning to easy living as a refuge from broken relationships and therefore force us to look elsewhere. The intent is that we look to God (see Hos. 5:15). Multiple specific reasons, however, may lie behind any particular affliction. They include punishment for sin (Deut. 29:22), often to induce repentance leading to restoration (Hos. 5:15; Zech. 10:9; 1 Cor. 11:30). Affliction may be dealt out by people as they sin against others (1 Sam. 1:7; 2 Sam. 16:12; 2 Thess. 1:6). One’s own choices may have natural consequences (Prov. 11:24; 13:20; 19:9, 15; 22:3), or consequences come due to a lack of leadership (Zech. 10:2). Some result from being associated with those going through afflictions (Num. 14:28–35; 1 Kings 2:26), suffering afflictions due to following Christ (Matt. 13:21; John 15:18–20; Acts 20:23), or feeling empathy for the afflicted (2 Cor. 2:4). Other afflictions are given as training, prevention, or refining (Isa. 48:10; Rom. 5:3–5; 2 Cor. 12:7; Heb. 12:5–13). Suffering affliction may also be substitutionary, on behalf of others (Isa. 53:4–7; and the substitutionary atonement of Christ generally).

In response to others’ afflictions, we are called to sympathy, compassion, comfort, and justice. Appropriate responses to our own afflictions range from patient endurance for the cause of Christ (James 5:11) to lamenting (the psalms and Christ’s example, Matt. 27:46).

A cult object as well as a goddess attested throughout the Levant.

In the OT, Asherah refers primarily to a wooden cult object (see Deut. 16:21). That these were objects and not trees is evident from descriptions of their (NIV: “Ashe­rah poles”) being “made” (1 Kings 14:15) and “set up” (14:23). The word appears in common cultic settings—upon hilltops and under leafy trees (1 Kings 14:23; 2 Kings 17:10)—and even in Yahweh’s temple (2 Kings 23:6). They appear also with other cult objects, notably altars and “sacred stones” (Exod. 34:13), and idols and incense stands (2 Chron. 34:4). Whether the Asherah poles were carved images is uncertain, though presumably they provided a stand-in for the goddess or deity.

The Israelites were instructed to destroy the Asherah poles upon entering Canaan (Exod. 34:13; also Deut. 7:5; 12:3). Instead, they fashioned their own (1 Kings 14:15, 23), assimilating them into worship of Yahweh (2 Kings 23:6). Later efforts at removing the poles were sporadic and temporary (compare 2 Kings 18:4 with 21:3, 7). Despite the apparent pervasiveness of these cult objects, archaeologists have yet to retrieve one.

In a handful of instances, “Asherah” denotes a deity. In Judg. 3:7 “the Asherahs” (here indicating “goddesses”) is grammatically parallel to “the Baals”; likewise “Asherah” corresponds to Baal and “the starry hosts,” designating a specific deity (2 Kings 23:4). In 1 Kings 18:19 Elijah speaks of the “prophets of Asherah,” who presumably spoke in the goddess’s name.

Twice Asherah is associated with her cult object: 1 Kings 15:13 (= 2 Chron. 15:16) mentions “an abominable thing” made “for Ashe­rah,” which the NIV renders as “a repulsive image for the worship of Asherah”; 2 Kings 21:7 mentions “the carved likeness of Asherah,” rendered as “the carved Asherah pole” (NIV). In 2 Kings 23:7 the narrator refers to a place where women did “weaving for Asherah.” It is unclear what these weavings were, though possibly they were cult garments or coverings for the cult image.

Outside the Bible, Asherah is attested in Mesopotamian, Hittite, and Philistine texts. The most comprehensive portrait of the goddess, however, comes from the Ras Shamra tablets (Ugarit). Designated “Athirat,” she was consort to El and Mother of the gods (who are called “the seventy sons of Athirat”). She is further designated as “Lady Athirat of the Sea” (in the Baal myth Sea is Athirat’s son); alternate renderings include “the Lady who treads on the Sea,” and “Lady Athirat of the Day.” In the Kirta Epic, Athirat is portrayed as the patron goddess of Tyre and Sidon (see Ashtaroth).

Inscriptions discovered at Khirbet el-Qom and Kuntillet ‘Ajrud (associated with Iron Age Israel) mention Yahweh and “his Asherah.” Disagreement exists over whether the term here reflects a cult object, a shrine, or the goddess. Also debated is whether this represents a combination of Yahwistic belief or a form of Yahwism predating monotheism.

Geography and Origins

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

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

Political and Military History

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Culture and Religion

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

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

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

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

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

The dislocation of a people group from its homeland. In the Bible, exile usually refers to two events in Israel’s history: the Assyrian exile of the northern kingdom in 722 BC and the Babylonian exile of the southern kingdom around 586 BC.

The Assyrian Exile

Although earlier Assyrian kings had deported the elite members of conquered populations, it was Tiglath-pileser III who formalized the procedure as a generalized policy in the late eighth century BC. Any people groups who were conquered or subdued after they had rebelled were subjected to exile by Tiglath-pileser, who resettled other conquered peoples in their place. This process of population exchange was designed to prevent the reorganization of and rebellion by groups that had been subjugated by Assyria.

The eventual Assyrian exile of the northern kingdom was set in motion when King Pekah of Israel joined with King Rezin of Damascus to revolt against their Assyrian overlords. Tiglath-pileser responded quickly and brutally, overrunning the northern kingdom in his campaign against Syria and Palestine (734–732 BC). Only a portion of Ephraim and western Manasseh remained, and with the assassination of Pekah, Hoshea was left to rule as the Assyrian vassal. However, before long Hoshea also rebelled. Shalmaneser V and his successor, Sargon II, conquered Samaria in 722 BC and exiled much of the Israelite population in Upper Mesopotamia. According to the biblical account of the fall of the north (2 Kings 15–17), peoples from Babylon, Cuthah, Avva, Hamath, and Sepharvaim were resettled in Samaria. The ten northern tribes eventually were assimilated into the local populations and were never reconstituted, though their eventual restoration would play an important role in prophetic eschatology (see Ezek. 37:15–28).

The Babylonian Exile

More frequently, the exile refers to the Babylonian exile of the southern kingdom in the sixth century BC. With the fall of the Assyrian capital of Nineveh in 612 BC, the Babylonians became the preeminent power in the Near East and quickly moved to consolidate previous Assyrian territories. In 601 BC Nebuchadnezzar’s forces clashed with Egyptian forces, and both sides suffered heavy losses. This setback prompted King Jehoiakim to rebel in order to establish Judah’s independence (2 Kings 24). The Babylonians marched on Judah, and in 597 BC Jerusalem surrendered. King Jehoiachin (who had become king after the assassination of his father, Jehoiakim), government officials, and leading citizens were taken to Babylon, and Zedekiah was installed as the vassal king of Judah. Further rebellions by Zedekiah eventually led to the destruction of Jerusalem, the burning of the temple, and the exile of even more of the population in 586 BC.

The Babylonians’ policy of exile differed from that of the Assyrians in two important respects. First, the Babylonians did not resettle other peoples in Judah. Second, they did not scatter the exiled peoples among other populations; rather, the Judahites were resettled in Babylon in their own community, called a golah. This resulted in the preservation of community identity along with theological traditions and texts. Important works of prophecy such as Ezekiel were written from the Babylonian golah, and there was much reflection on Israel’s history. One of the principal points of 1–2 Kings is that exile was God’s punishment for the sin of the nation, and repentance and a return to God were needed before they could be restored from exile.

After the Exile

The first sign that Jewish fortunes might be improving came in 561 BC, when the Babylonian king Awel-Marduk (Evil-Merodach) exalted King Jehoiachin and gave him a place of honor in his court (2 Kings 25:27–30). But hopes rose even more after the ascendancy of the Persian king Cyrus. When Cyrus conquered the Median Empire in 550 BC, he treated the new subjects quite well compared to Babylonian policies. Cyrus made a habit of restoring exiled peoples to their homelands and permitted the reconstruction of local shrines. In cases of major temples or those that served a strategic importance for the Persian government, funds were even supplied for the rebuilding projects. The shrewd statesman Cyrus understood well that grateful subjects were more likely to be obedient subjects. By the autumn of 539 BC, Cyrus had sufficient military strength to attack Babylon, and when he did, the city fell surprisingly quickly.

In the wake of this victory and in conformity with Cyrus’s policy, he authorized the return of the Jews living in the Babylonian golah and authorized the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem (Ezra 1:2–4; 5:13–17). Although some preliminary work was done, the rebuilding of the temple did not make significant progress until 520 BC, under the prophetic influence of Haggai and Zechariah and the leadership of Zerubbabel and Joshua the high priest. With the return from Babylon and the rebuilding of the temple, the period of the exile technically came to an end.

However, even though the exilic period had come to an end in one respect, in another respect the Jews living in the late sixth century and later concluded that the exile had not fully ended. The hopes surrounding the Davidic heir Zerubbabel had waned by 515 BC, and the Jews still found themselves under the foreign rule of the Persians, albeit a more benevolent rule than that of the Babylonians. There was widespread social inequity, and the sins that had originally led Israel into exile still plagued the community. Thus, because the pictures of restoration in Isaiah and Ezekiel had not yet been realized, in a certain sense Israel was still in “exile” or slavery (cf. Ezra 9:7–8). Thus, throughout the Second Temple period many Jews considered the exile to have continued in a theological way, even though the Babylonian exile had come to an end.

This “theological exile” is the background to many statements of restoration in the Gospels. When Jesus calls twelve disciples who will institute the kingdom by driving out demons, curing illnesses, and ruling over the twelve tribes, he is implying that he has come to restore Israel from exile, for both the ten northern tribes and the two southern tribes (see Matt. 10:1; Luke 6:13; 22:28–30).

Devotion or service that is improper. Worship, whether false or true, generally consists of two aspects that are distinct but not necessarily separate: (1) the performance of certain rituals, including sacrifice, circumcision, baptism, and so forth; (2) the attitudes and activities that reflect devotion to a person or object. The first aspect shows worship as ritual, consisting of formal, regulated elements. The second aspect shows worship as devotion, consisting of a life of piety. False worship occurs when a worshiper fails in one or both of these aspects.

Forms of False Worship

The Bible describes false worship occurring in three different ways: (1) the worshiper demonstrates devotion to anything other than God, (2) the worshiper performs a ritual contrary to its instructed observance, and (3) the worshiper performs a ritual while leading a life of unrepentant disobedience to God.

The most severe form of false worship is when a worshiper demonstrates devotion to anything other than God. This type of false worship may include worship as ritual in which a rite or ceremony is performed directly for another god. Some rituals are specifically mentioned in the Bible: passing children through fire (2 Kings 16:3; 17:17; 21:6), consorting with shrine prostitutes (esp. Hos. 4:14), and offering sacrifices to idols (esp. Lev. 17:7). This type of false worship may also include attitudes and actions that demonstrate a higher degree of devotion to something other than the true God. This devotion may be to another god or object, even material wealth (cf. Col. 3:5, where Paul equates greed with idolatry).

The second form of false worship involves performing a ritual contrary to its instructed observance. At Mount Sinai, God gives a code of laws that regulate the practice of making sacrifices and offerings, confining them to certain personnel (priests and Levites), certain circumstances (cleanness), certain animals or plants (depending on the sacrifice and the wealth of the offerer), certain times (Passover, Day of Atonement), and a certain location (tent of meeting, later the temple). On occasion, the law requires death as the penalty for failure to observe the rituals correctly (Exod. 30:20–38; Lev. 10:1–3; 16:2). This type of false worship is basically limited to the OT because of the highly regulated and ritualistic nature of Israel’s worship. Although the NT contains rituals of worship, there is no indication of a censured method of observation, only of an improper attitude (1 Cor. 11:27–33).

The third form of false worship involves performing a ritual while living a life of unrepentant disobedience to God. The Bible addresses this type of false worship in several passages (1 Sam. 15:22; Isa. 1; Amos 4–5; Mic. 6). They demonstrate that even if the ritual is performed correctly and toward the true God rather than another god, a sinful lifestyle of the worshiper will invalidate the worship. Worship is not automatically accepted simply because it is performed in the right way by the right official at the right time for the right God; it has ethical demands (esp. Isa. 1:11–23; Jer. 14:7–10; Amos 4:4–13; 5:21–27). The prophets make it clear that God not only rejects worship from wicked, unrepentant worshipers but also abhors it (esp. Isa. 1:11–23; Amos 5:21–27).

Ritual and Ethical Aspects of False Worship

Regardless of the form of false worship, God takes it seriously. Ritual and ethical aspects of worship are both important. The deaths of Nadab and Abihu provide a good example of the importance of the ritual aspects of worship; they died because they performed a ritual contrary to its prescribed manner (Lev. 10:1). The text does not connect their death to some ethical failing but rather states that they profaned God by their ritual disobedience (cf. 10:1–3).

On other occasions, the lack of proper ritual observance accompanies serious ethical failings. For instance, Hophni and Phinehas committed two great transgressions. First, they performed the sacrifices contrary to regulation for their selfish gain, falling short both ritually and ethically. Second, they committed acts of fornication at the place of worship (1 Sam. 2:13–17, 22). The judgment upon them was a result of both transgressions. Malachi rebukes the Israelites of his day because the animals that they brought for sacrifice, being diseased or disabled, were unacceptable according to regulation (Mal. 1:7–14). The ritual transgression revealed their lack of devotion to God, which was reflected in their ethical failings as well (2:8–12).

On the other hand, the Bible emphasizes the priority of the ethical aspects of worship over the ritual. When Saul does not wait for Samuel as Samuel commanded him but instead makes an offering before Samuel arrives, Samuel rebukes Saul because of his disobedience to Samuel’s instruction (delivered as a word of the Lord), not because of his method for carrying out the ritual (1 Sam. 15:22). When Jeremiah speaks of the covenant at Mount Sinai, he emphasizes God’s demand for devotion instead of the ritual observances (Jer. 7:22–23).

Other passages show that proper worship is possible even without a ritual element. Micah defines proper worship without ritual elements, but purely in ethical terms (Mic. 6:8). When asked about the proper place of worship, Jesus tells the Samaritan woman that the location is irrelevant, only that worship must occur in spirit and truth (John 4:19–24).

Idolatry

The most serious and most widespread form of false worship is idolatry. In a technical sense, idolatry is creating a physical representation of a deity. In a more general sense, idolatry involves any sign of devotion to anything other than the one true God. Idolatry in the OT consists of both making an image of God and making images of other deities. Both practices are forbidden in the Ten Commandments, which are a succinct presentation of God’s ethical demands. The incident of the golden calf is a paradigmatic case of idolatry. Israel created a physical representation of the God who brought them up from Egypt (Exod. 32:1–8). Jeroboam followed this example by erecting two golden calves in Israel, again as images of the God who brought Israel up from Egypt (1 Kings 12:25–33). Although these cases involve an image of God, idolatry is usually closely connected with the worship of other gods (1 Kings 14:9; 2 Kings 17:7–12; 22:17). Idolatry is one of the main reasons for the exile of both the northern and the southern kingdoms (2 Kings 17:7–12; Isa. 2:8–22; Jer. 1:14–16).

Human Uses and Metaphors

Fire is a basic necessity for various human activities such as cooking (Exod. 12:8; Isa. 44:15–16, 19; John 21:9), warming (Isa. 44:16; Jer. 36:22; John 18:18), lighting (Isa. 50:11), manufacturing (Exod. 32:24), and refining metals (Num. 31:22–23). Fire is also an important means of maintaining the purity of God’s people, used to punish sinners (the sexually immoral [Lev. 20:14; 21:9; cf. Gen. 38:24] and the disobedient [Josh. 7:25; cf. 2 Kings 23:16]) and to destroy idols (Exod. 32:20; Deut. 7:5, 25; 2 Kings 10:26), chariots (Josh. 11:6, 9), and the cities of Canaan (Josh. 6:24; 8:19; 11:11; Judg. 18:27). As an essential means of worship, fire is used to burn sacrificial animals (Gen. 8:20; Exod. 29:18; Lev. 1:9; 3:3; 9:10, 13–14, 20) and grain offerings (Lev. 2:2, 9; 9:17).

The Mosaic law has several regulations concerning fire. Regarded as work, starting a fire is forbidden on the Sabbath (Exod. 35:3). It is the responsibility of the priests to keep the fire burning on the altar (Lev. 6:9, 12–13). The use of an “unauthorized fire” for sacrifice is forbidden (note Nadab and Abihu’s death [Lev. 10:1–2; cf. Num. 3:4; 26:61; 1 Chron. 24:2]). Also, contrary to the Canaanite religious custom, burning children is forbidden (Deut. 18:10), though the Israelites failed to keep this command and elicited God’s judgment (2 Kings 16:3; 17:17; 21:6; Jer. 7:31; 32:35; note Josiah’s ban in 2 Kings 23:10).

As a metaphor, fire also signifies human anger (Ps. 39:3), wickedness (Isa. 9:18), self-reliance (Isa. 50:11), evil planning (Hos. 7:6–7), lust (Prov. 6:27–28), evil speech or tongue (Prov. 16:27; James 3:5–6), and, paradoxically, kindness to an enemy (Prov. 25:22; Rom. 12:20).

Divine Uses and Metaphors

In the Bible, God is described as the ruler of fire (Ps. 104:4; cf. 1 Kings 18). Positively, God sends fire to signify his acceptance of worship (Lev. 9:24; Judg. 13:19–20; 1 Kings 18:38; 2 Chron. 7:1–3; cf. Luke 9:54). God also purifies his people by fire in order to provide them with abundance (Ps. 66:12), to cleanse them of their sins (Isa. 6:6–7), to refine them into the true remnant (Zech. 13:9), to restore true worship (Mal. 3:2–3), to bring forth genuine faith (1 Cor. 3:13, 15; 1 Pet. 1:7), and to give Christians a true joy of participating in Christ’s suffering (1 Pet. 4:12). God also promises to make his people like a firepot and a flaming torch that will burn the surrounding enemies (Zech. 12:6). Negatively, God uses fire to punish the wicked and disobedient (Gen. 19:24; Exod. 9:23; Num. 11:1; 16:35; 2 Kings 1:10, 12; Isa. 29:6; 34:9–10; 66:24; Ezek. 38:22; 39:6; Rev. 20:9). God is a farmer burning unfruitful trees (John 15:2, 6; cf. Matt. 3:10; 7:19; 13:40) and “thorns and briers” (Isa. 10:17). The eternal fire of hell is the place where God’s final judgment will be executed (Matt. 5:22; 25:41; Mark 9:45–49; Jude 1:7; note the “lake of fire” in Rev. 20:14–15; cf. 14:10; 21:8).

Fire is also a symbol used to image the indescribable God. It symbolizes God’s presence: a smoking firepot with a flaming torch (Gen. 15:17), the burning bush (Exod. 3:2; cf. Elijah’s expectation [1 Kings 19:12]), the pillars of fire and smoke (Exod. 13:21–22; Num. 14:14), the smoke on Mount Sinai and in the tabernacle and the temple (Exod. 19:19; Num. 9:15–16; Deut. 4:11–12; Isa. 6:4). Fire marks God’s protection: the “horses and chariots of fire” (2 Kings 6:17; cf. 2:11), the “wall of fire” (Zech. 2:5). Fire also represents God’s glory: God’s throne (Dan. 7:9; cf. Ezek. 1:4, 13; 10:2, 6–7), God’s form (Ezek. 1:27), the seven spirits of God before the throne (Rev. 4:5). God in his holy wrath is also likened to a burning fire (Pss. 79:5; 89:46; Isa. 5:24; 33:14; Jer. 15:14; Ezek. 21:31; 22:21; Hos. 8:5; note the expression “consuming fire” [Deut. 4:24; Isa. 33:14; Heb. 12:29]) and even to a fiery monster (Ps. 18:8; Isa. 30:33; 65:5; cf. Job 41:19–21). Fire is an important element in the description of the day of the Lord (Joel 2:3; cf. 2 Pet. 3:12). God’s words in the prophet’s mouth are likened to a fire (Jer. 5:14; 20:9; 23:29).

Fire is also used to speak of Jesus. John the Baptist refers to Jesus’ baptism as one with the Holy Spirit and fire (Matt. 3:11). Jesus identifies the purpose of his coming as casting fire on earth (Luke 12:49). The returning Jesus is portrayed as coming in “blazing fire” (2 Thess. 1:7), and the eyes of the glorified Christ are likened to “blazing fire” (Rev. 1:14; 2:18; cf. “flaming torches” in Dan. 10:6). In Acts 2:3 the Holy Spirit is portrayed as the “tongues of fire.”

In the OT, “high places” were places of worship, probably so named because hilltops were the preferred sites for such shrines (though alternative explanations are offered). They do not imply the presence of a temple building, but rather might consist simply of outdoor altars and could be associated with other religious objects such as sacred stones and fertility symbols (1 Kings 14:23). In the only description we have of the appearance of high places, they are disparaged as being “gaudy” (Ezek. 16:16).

Before Israel entered the land of Canaan, such shrines were centers of pagan fertility religion, the worship of the Baals. The Israelites were instructed that, on entering the land, they were to destroy all such shrines (Num. 33:52; Deut. 33:29). This they failed to do, and although not every Israelite high place had Canaanite origins, it appears that many did. Perhaps because of their Canaanite background and the continued presence of some Canaanite worshipers in Israel’s midst, the high places, while notionally becoming places of Yahweh worship for Israel (2 Kings 17:32; 18:22; 2 Chron. 33:17), were places where this worship was debased by pagan associations and practices, even to the extent of child sacrifice (Jer. 7:31) and prostitution (if this is to be taken literally in Ezek. 16:16; 43:7). The worship of Yahweh at these shrines became indistinguishable from Baal worship (2 Kings 17:11; 23:5), and some were specifically erected to foreign gods (1 Kings 11:7; Jer. 32:35). While perhaps deliberately not called a “high place,” the altar that Elijah repaired on Mount Carmel became a focal point for calling for an end to such syncretism (1 Kings 18).

High places had priests to officiate at their rituals, though often not from the line of Aaron (1 Kings 12:31; 2 Kings 17:32; 23:5).

The books of Samuel do not seem to comment negatively on the worship of Yahweh at the high places. In 1 Sam. 9:12–25 is an account of the prophet Samuel’s sacrifice at a high place, and it is at a high place that Saul encountered a prophetic band and received the Spirit of the Lord following his anointing by Samuel (10:5–13).

Even before the construction of the temple in Jerusalem, Solomon received a negative comment for his sacrifice at the high places (1 Kings 3:3). In Solomon’s time, the high place at Gibeon, where the tabernacle was erected, was considered the most important of the high places (1 Kings 3:4; 2 Chron. 1:3). For the writer(s) of 1–2 Kings, continued worship at the high places was a constant source of frustration. It is clear that following the construction of the temple in Jerusalem, at least, they considered that all sacrificial worship should be centralized in Jerusalem.

Even some of the best kings disappointingly failed to remove the high places (1 Kings 15:14; 22:43; 2 Kings 12:3; 14:4; 15:4, 35). The only kings who managed the removal of the high places were Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:4) and Josiah (23:4–20). It has generally been considered that the instruction of Deuteronomy concerning “the place the Lord your God will choose from among all your tribes to put his Name” (Deut. 12:5) required the centralization of all worship, and that this agenda is driving the ideology of the writer(s) of 1–2 Kings (cf. the use of “Name” at 1 Kings 3:2). While the words of Deuteronomy are capable of being understood in a way that allowed for multiple places where God might set his name at any one time, the tabernacle with its ark symbolizing God’s covenant presence could be in only one place, and the corruption that characterized the local shrines meant that the ruthless abolition of all local shrines was the only way forward for a faithful king such as Josiah.

Micah 1:5 likens Jerusalem (probably with particular reference to the temple) to a high place because of its unfaithfulness and corruption.

A KJV phrase used to describe the heavenly bodies or heavenly beings. The NIV prefers “starry host(s),” “multitudes of heaven,” or “stars in the heavens/sky,” but “host of the heavens” does occur in Dan. 8:10. The Hebrew phrase, tseba’ hashamayim, means literally “army of the heavens.” The connection between the celestial elements and an army comes in conjunction with God’s role as the commander of the Israelite forces (Josh. 5:13–15; Judg. 5:23). There are times when the Bible portrays the celestial elements as part of God’s military retinue, fighting on his behalf. The stars fight from heaven against Sisera (Judg. 5:20), and in the Israelites’ battle against the Amorites, the sun and the moon are commanded to stand still (Josh. 10:12–13; cf. Hab. 3:11). Based on these passages, the phrase may have had some military background, but it is also understood in other ways.

Perhaps one of the more enigmatic uses of the phrase occurs in 1 Kings 22:19 (cf. 2 Chron. 18:18; NIV: “multitudes of heaven”), where it describes God’s council. There are other biblical phrases used with more frequency to describe the heavenly council surrounding God. Other names for these beings include the “seraphim” of Isa. 6:2 and the “sons of God” in Job 1:6; 2:1; Pss. 29:1; 89:6. The connection between God’s council and the celestial elements likely comes, as noted above, through the heavenly bodies’ association with God in battle. Further solidifying this connection is Job 38:7, where the “sons of God” parallel the “morning stars.” Exactly what these heavenly beings are is debated, and many interpreters suggest the answer lies in the polytheistic context of Israel’s neighbors. Another possible explanation is to view these beings as the messengers or angels of God. The Bible portrays them as inferior beings (Deut. 3:24; 10:17; Jer. 10:6), and they function to serve and worship Yahweh (Pss. 29:1; 103:21; 148:2–3; Isa. 6:2). The angels who appear to the shepherds at Jesus’ birth are described as the “heavenly host” (Luke 2:13).

The last and most frequent use of the phrase “host of heaven” is to describe a condemned object of Israelite worship. It is likely that from their association with God’s council, these celestial elements gained an independent status and were worshiped apart from God. At times the “host of heaven” appears to refer to the stars alone; the NIV therefore translates it as “stars in the sky” (Deut. 17:3; Jer. 33:22; cf. Jer. 8:2) or “starry hosts” (2 Kings 23:5). At other times the phrase refers to the totality of the heavenly bodies (Deut. 4:19 [NIV: “heavenly array”]; cf. 2 Kings 21:3, 5). Based on the distribution of the phrase, and its occurrence primarily in documents narrating the Assyrian period (2 Kings 17:16; 21:3, 5; 23:4–5; Jer. 19:13; Zeph. 1:5), there is likely a direct correlation between the worship of the host of heaven and Israel’s Assyrian vassalage in the seventh century BC. The extent of Assyrian impact on Israelite religion is debated, but it is likely that astral worship—that is, worship of the starry hosts—flourished in this period due to the influence of the Assyrians, a culture entrenched in worship of the astral powers.

To appropriate the thought or behavior of others. God warns Israel not to imitate “the detestable ways of the nations” (Deut. 18:9; cf. Exod. 23:24; Lev. 18:3). Israel’s desire for cultural assimilation, leading to idolatry, incurs divine judgment (2 Kings 17:15; Ezek. 20:32; 25:8). The NT carries forward this warning to Christians, who must embrace their citizenship in heaven (Phil. 3:20; cf. Rom. 12:1–2; James 4:4; 1 John 2:15; 5:5, 19).

Inversely, to imitate the humility of Christ, complete submission to the will of God, regardless of the cost, is a core virtue (Phil. 2:1–11; Titus 3:2; cf. Matt. 11:28–30). Paul invites others to imitate him as he imitates Christ (1 Cor. 11:1; 2 Thess. 3:7–9; 2 Tim. 3:10–12). By obeying Christ, a disciple imitates God (Eph. 5:1–2).

Imitation incarnates faith. To this end, Jesus spends time with his disciples, allowing them to observe his way for approximately three years before submitting to the painful conclusion of God’s will for his earthly ministry (Mark 3:14; 14:36). Jesus commands his disciples to imitate his washing of their feet, a task normally reserved for the lowest household slave (John 13:12–20), and to pick up their own crosses (Mark 8:34 pars.). “A student,” he reminds them, “is not above his teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like his teacher” (Luke 6:40).

A synonym of “strength.” “Power” often translates the Hebrew words koakh or ’az or the Greek word dynamis, all of which denote strength or might. The Hebrew word yad (“hand”) may also denote power when it is used to speak of the dominion of a ruler (e.g., 2 Kings 17:7 [NASB: “hand of Pharaoh”; NIV: “power of Pharaoh”]).

Although humans have a degree of power, God is omnipotent, all-powerful (Jer. 32:17). He utilized his great power in creating the world (Jer. 51:15; Rom. 1:20; Rev. 4:11). He has also displayed his power through other mighty acts, such as delivering the Israelites from Egypt (Exod. 14:31; Deut. 9:26). The wisdom literature extols God’s power (Job 9:4; Pss. 20:6; 66:3; 147:5), as do the prophets (Isa. 40:10; Jer. 27:5; Dan. 2:20; Nah. 1:3) and the letters of the NT (1 Cor. 6:14; Eph. 1:18–21; Col. 2:10). God continues to display his power through the gospel (Rom. 1:16), not only in rescuing believers from their sins (1 Cor. 1:24–25) but also in empowering them to live holy lives (2 Cor. 4:7).

The Holy Spirit has acted and continues to act as the agent of God’s power (Judg. 14:6; 1 Sam. 16:13; Acts 1:8). Just as the Holy Spirit has done many powerful signs and wonders through Jesus and the apostles (Acts 10:38; Rom. 15:18–19), he gives rebirth to each Christian through his power (Gal. 4:29). The Holy Spirit also strengthens Christians with power “so that Christ may dwell in [their] hearts through faith” (Eph. 3:17).

A KJV phrase used to describe the heavenly bodies or heavenly beings. The NIV prefers “starry host(s),” “multitudes of heaven,” or “stars in the heavens/sky,” but “host of the heavens” does occur in Dan. 8:10. The Hebrew phrase, tseba’ hashamayim, means literally “army of the heavens.” The connection between the celestial elements and an army comes in conjunction with God’s role as the commander of the Israelite forces (Josh. 5:13–15; Judg. 5:23). There are times when the Bible portrays the celestial elements as part of God’s military retinue, fighting on his behalf. The stars fight from heaven against Sisera (Judg. 5:20), and in the Israelites’ battle against the Amorites, the sun and the moon are commanded to stand still (Josh. 10:12–13; cf. Hab. 3:11). Based on these passages, the phrase may have had some military background, but it is also understood in other ways.

Perhaps one of the more enigmatic uses of the phrase occurs in 1 Kings 22:19 (cf. 2 Chron. 18:18; NIV: “multitudes of heaven”), where it describes God’s council. There are other biblical phrases used with more frequency to describe the heavenly council surrounding God. Other names for these beings include the “seraphim” of Isa. 6:2 and the “sons of God” in Job 1:6; 2:1; Pss. 29:1; 89:6. The connection between God’s council and the celestial elements likely comes, as noted above, through the heavenly bodies’ association with God in battle. Further solidifying this connection is Job 38:7, where the “sons of God” parallel the “morning stars.” Exactly what these heavenly beings are is debated, and many interpreters suggest the answer lies in the polytheistic context of Israel’s neighbors. Another possible explanation is to view these beings as the messengers or angels of God. The Bible portrays them as inferior beings (Deut. 3:24; 10:17; Jer. 10:6), and they function to serve and worship Yahweh (Pss. 29:1; 103:21; 148:2–3; Isa. 6:2). The angels who appear to the shepherds at Jesus’ birth are described as the “heavenly host” (Luke 2:13).

The last and most frequent use of the phrase “host of heaven” is to describe a condemned object of Israelite worship. It is likely that from their association with God’s council, these celestial elements gained an independent status and were worshiped apart from God. At times the “host of heaven” appears to refer to the stars alone; the NIV therefore translates it as “stars in the sky” (Deut. 17:3; Jer. 33:22; cf. Jer. 8:2) or “starry hosts” (2 Kings 23:5). At other times the phrase refers to the totality of the heavenly bodies (Deut. 4:19 [NIV: “heavenly array”]; cf. 2 Kings 21:3, 5). Based on the distribution of the phrase, and its occurrence primarily in documents narrating the Assyrian period (2 Kings 17:16; 21:3, 5; 23:4–5; Jer. 19:13; Zeph. 1:5), there is likely a direct correlation between the worship of the host of heaven and Israel’s Assyrian vassalage in the seventh century BC. The extent of Assyrian impact on Israelite religion is debated, but it is likely that astral worship—that is, worship of the starry hosts—flourished in this period due to the influence of the Assyrians, a culture entrenched in worship of the astral powers.

Towers (or watchtowers) were circular or square stone structures, measuring about twenty-five feet in diameter, built at the corners of a wall (Jer. 31:38; cf. 2 Chron. 14:7; 26:9). They could be referred to as fortified citadels of a city (2 Kings 17:9; 2 Chron. 14:6; 26:9, 15; Neh. 3:1), strongholds (Judg. 9:51), or fortresses (2 Chron. 27:4). As a defense system, they provided enhancement to city walls and gates. Arrows and projectiles could be fired at enemies scaling the walls. As a communications system, they often served as signal stations where guards could watch for approaching enemies (2 Kings 9:17; 17:9; Isa. 21:12).

A West Semitic weather and warrior deity. There is evidence that “Baal,” meaning “lord,” was a proper name for a deity as early as the third millennium BC and may have been identified with the god Hadad.

Excavations from the city of Ugarit have uncovered second-millennium BC texts dealing with the cult and mythology of Baal. These texts depict Baal as a god of weather and storm whose provision of precipitation ensures the seasonal cycles of crops. The Baal Cycle from Ugarit also depicts him defeating Yamm, the god of the sea, and Mot, the god of death. Some of these associations shed light on polemics against Baal in the OT. Yahweh’s withholding rain at Elijah’s request (1 Kings 17:1), for example, undermines Baal’s claim to control the weather. Further, descriptions of Yahweh as a storm god, such as Ps. 29, may be understood as polemical statements that Yahweh, not Baal, is the one who really controls the storm.

The worship of Baal along­side Yahweh received official sponsorship in Israel under Ahab (1 Kings 16:31–33) and in Judah under Manasseh (2 Kings 10:18–27). The worship of this deity was grounds for the exile of Israel (2 Kings 17:16).

The ancient site of Bethel is probably to be identified with the modern village of Beitin, 10.5 miles north of Jerusalem. Its location is described and pinpointed in Gen. 12:8; Judg. 21:19. Bethel’s situation and importance are explained by its copious springs and its location at the intersection of major ancient highways, the north-south mountain road and the east-west road from Jericho to the coastal plain.

From the patriarchs to the judges. The first mention of Bethel in the Bible is in Gen. 12:8, where Abram camped “east of Bethel” on his first entry into the Promised Land. He camped there again on his return from a stay in Egypt (13:3). On the first occasion Abram erected “an altar to the Lord.” When Abram returned to that spot, he “called on the name of the Lord.”

It was Jacob who gave it the name “Bethel,” meaning “house of God,” due to the dream he received in that location. In the dream he saw a ladder reaching to heaven, and God spoke to him (28:10–19). Its former name was Luz. God later appeared in Mesopotamia and spoke to Jacob, identifying himself as “the God of Bethel,” instructing him to return to his native land. The title taken by God implied that God would be faithful to his earlier promise to bring Jacob back to his land (31:13). Later God specifically instructed Jacob to settle in Bethel (35:1–6). Deborah, Rebekah’s nurse, died in Bethel and was buried there (35:8). God appeared to Jacob a second time in Bethel and spoke to him, reiterating the promise to give him the land of Canaan (35:9–15; cf. 28:13). All God’s dealings with Jacob are connected to the theophanies and divine promises associated with Bethel.

Bethel is mentioned a number of times in the account of Joshua’s capture of Ai, a city that lay to the east of Bethel (Josh. 7). The king of Bethel is listed among the kings defeated by Joshua (12:16). Under Joshua, the city was apportioned to Benjamin (18:13, 22), but the Canaanites repopulated it after the near extinction of the tribe of Benjamin (Judg. 20–21). Bethel was reconquered by the house of Joseph and incorporated into Ephraimite territory (Judg. 1:22–25; 1 Chron. 7:28), and later it became a fortress on its southern tribal border. Deborah held court between Ramah and Bethel (Judg. 4:5). Under the judgeship of Samuel, Bethel was one of his regular stops in his yearly circuit (1 Sam. 7:16). It continued throughout this period to be a sanctuary where offerings were made (see 1 Sam. 10:3).

From the monarchy to the exile. This long-term cultic association explains the choice of Bethel as one of the two chief sanctuaries of the northern kingdom, the other center being in Dan. Jeroboam I built a royal shrine at Bethel to rival Jerusalem and to prevent the Israelites from drifting back to the Davidic dynasty (1 Kings 12:26–33). The prophet Ahijah’s criticism of Jeroboam’s actions was not due to Ahijah’s commitment to a central sanctuary at Jerusalem (14:1–16) but rather arose from the use of bull images (golden calves). This was not an innocent move by Jeroboam, returning to pre-Jerusalem and more ancient cultic symbols. It is not adequate simply to view Jeroboam’s calves as a “pedestal” upon which the Lord was believed to be enthroned (as accepted by W. F. Albright), for an explicit link is made with the idolatrous golden calf set up by Aaron in the desert: “Here are your gods, Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt” (1 Kings 12:28 [cf. Exod. 32:8]). This became known as the chief sin of Jeroboam son of Nebat. It tainted the northern kingdom (see 2 Kings 10:29) and eventually led to that kingdom’s judgment by God at the hands of the Assyrians (2 Kings 17:21–23).

The southern king Abijah captured Bethel from Israel in the latter part of Jeroboam’s reign (2 Chron. 13:19), but then it later returned to northern control. The unnamed “man of God” in 1 Kings 13 predicted the later destruction of the Bethel altar by King Josiah (1 Kings 13:1–3), a prediction subsequently fulfilled (2 Kings 23:4, 15–18). Bethel was visited by Elijah before his translation to heaven (2 Kings 2:2–4), and a company of prophets dwelt there. Elisha revisited Bethel after his master’s translation and cursed the forty-two youths who insulted him (2 Kings 2:23–25).

Hosea condemned the great wickedness of Bethel, presumably because of the false worship that went on there (Hos. 10:15), but more positively, he recalled that this was the location where God had talked with the patriarch Jacob (12:4). Jeremiah also explained the sad fate of Israel to be a result of their trust in Bethel (Jer. 48:13). Amos, in his condemnation of the worship system of the northern kingdom, ironically called to the people, “Go to Bethel and sin” (Amos 4:4). Later he dropped the irony and spoke plainly: “Do not seek Bethel” (5:5), predicting its destruction (5:6; cf. 3:14). It was in Bethel that Amos was criticized by the head priest Amaziah (7:10–17) and was told to no longer prophesy there because it was “the king’s sanctuary.”

From the exile to the Roman period. The city was destroyed by the Assyrians about the time of their capture of Samaria (722 BC), but the shrine was revived in the form of a syncretistic cult at the close of the Assyrian period by the foreign peoples deported to the area (2 Kings 17:24–41). Some descendants of the inhabi­tants of Bethel were among those who returned from Babylonian exile in the first great caravan (Ezra 2:28; Neh. 7:32), and these Benjamite returnees resettled in their hometown (Neh. 11:31). Bethel prospered in the Hellenistic and Roman periods.

Bible formation and canon development are best understood in light of historical events and theological principles. In the historical-theological process we learn what God did and how he engaged a variety of people to produce Scripture as the word of God. The Bible is the written revelation of the triune God, who made himself known to his creation. The divine actions of God to reveal himself resulted in a written text recognized to be authoritative and thus copied and preserved for future generations. The process of recognizing and collecting authoritative books of the Scriptures occurred over time and involved consensus.

Bible Formation

Revelation. The process of Bible formation begins with God revealing. The act of revelation involved God communicating truth to the human writers in a progressive and unified manner. Inspiration is the act of God the Holy Spirit, who superintended the biblical authors so that they composed the books of Scripture exactly as he intended. God used the biblical writers, their personalities and their writing styles, in a manner that kept them from error in composing the original written product, the Scriptures. The resulting books of the Bible constitute God’s permanent special revelation to humankind.

Both Testaments affirm the work of revelation along with the formation of a body of divine writings. The OT is dominated by the phrase “thus says the Lord” and similar expressions (cf. Gen. 9:8; Josh. 24:27; Isa. 1:2; Jer. 1:7 and contrast Ps. 135:15–19). Every part of the OT is viewed as the word of God (Rom. 3:2). This is confirmed by Jesus’ attitude toward the Scriptures (Matt. 19:4–5; 21:42; 22:29; cf. Luke 11:50–51; 24:44).

Four NT passages help us understand the work of inspiration. A factual statement regarding the extent and nature of inspiration is made in 2 Tim. 3:16. According to 2 Pet. 1:19–20, the Holy Spirit purposefully carried persons along to produce the prophetic word, and 1 Cor. 2:10–13 supports the choice of the words in the work of composing the inspired product. Finally, Peter comments that Paul was given wisdom to produce inspired literary documents in the canon of Scripture (2 Pet. 3:14–18).

Authority. Books formed and authored by God in this manner are authoritative. Because the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God reliably composed in the originals, it is binding upon people in their relationship with God and other people. Biblical authority derives from God’s eternal character and the content of his word preserved in Scripture. The inscripturated word of God is authoritative and requires obedience.

The authority of God’s word is affirmed and illustrated in the creation and fall narratives. In the fall, Adam and Eve rebelled against God’s command (Gen. 3:3–4) and were expelled from the garden. In subsequent periods of biblical history, God’s spoken and written word continued to be the basis for belief and conduct. God summarized his will in the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:1-17; Deut. 5:6–21) and held his people accountable to it (Deut. 6:2; Josh. 1:8; 2 Kings 17:5–23). The authoritative word embraced by faith protects the believer from sin (Ps. 119:11). The fool is the person who rejects God’s authority (Pss. 14:1; 53:1). The apostle Paul acknowledged the authority of the gospel for his own life and ministry (Gal. 1:6–9). God the Holy Spirit impresses upon the believer the authority of the Bible as the reliable rule for faith and practice (John 6:63).

God made provision for a reliable and trustworthy preservation of his authoritative word in the multiplicity of extant manuscripts. God commanded that his revealed word be copied (Deut. 17:8–18; 24:8; 31:9, 25–26; 33:8–10) for administrative and personal purposes (Deut. 6:6; Josh. 1:8; 23:6; Prov. 3:3; 7:3). Through this process of multiplication the word of God was preserved (Ps. 119:152, 160; Isa. 40:8; cf. Matt. 5:17–18; John 10:35; 1 Pet. 1:22–25).

Canonization

Canonization is the next critical step in the development of the Bible. The word “canon” (Gk. kanōn) refers to a standard, norm, or rule (Gal. 6:16; cf. Ezek. 42:16), and when applied to the Bible, it designates the collection of books revealed by God, divinely inspired, and recognized by the people of God as the authoritative norm for faith and practice. The presupposition of canonicity is that God spoke to his human creatures and his word was accurately recorded. Since inspiration determines canonicity, the books composed by human beings under the direction of the Holy Spirit functioned authoritatively at the time of writing. The people of God then recognized and collected the books that they discerned to be inspired and authoritative (1 Thess. 2:10–16; 2 Pet. 3:15).

The canonical process. The challenge associated with canon and Bible formation is that the Scriptures do not reveal a detailed historical process for recognizing and collecting inspired works. An understanding of this process is derived from the testimony of Jesus, biblical principles, and historical precedents.

Canonical identification is associated with the witness of the Holy Spirit, who worked in connection with the believers to recognize the written documents given by inspiration (1 Thess. 2:13). The Holy Spirit enabled believers to discern a book’s authority and its compatibility with existing canonical revelation (Isa. 8:20; Acts 17:11). Although the question of authorship cannot be positively settled for every OT or NT book, believers recognized the prophets as the OT authors (Deut. 18:14–22) and the apostles as the NT authors. Canonical books were recognized to bear the power of God and to contain an effective message (2 Tim. 3:15–16; Heb. 4:12; 1 Pet. 1:23).

Over time, the authoritative books of Scripture were collected into a body of literature that today forms one book, the Bible. During this process, some believers struggled with the message, content, and ambiguous authorship of books such as Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, and Esther in the OT and Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter in the NT. The pattern of composition and canonical process for the OT provided the foundation for the composition and development of the NT canon. Therefore, the NT books that came to be recognized as canonical were those that were composed in connection with an apostle, doctrinally sound, and widely circulated and used by the churches.

In the collection task some texts were recognized (homologoumena), some were disputed (antilegomena), and others were rejected as unorthodox (pseudepigrapha). Historically, there is no evidence for widespread acceptance of the present-day canon of sixty-six books until the third century AD.

Structure and content. Over the centuries, several canonical lists began to emerge, often influenced by particular theological conclusions. For example, the Samaritan canon, which includes only the first five books of our OT, was compiled by the Samaritans, who were hostile to anything in Israel or Judea outside Samaria. Today, Christian traditions vary in their inclusion or omission of the Apocrypha from their Bibles and in their list of which books are contained in the Apocrypha.

The Babylonian canon, accepted as standard by Jews, contains all the books now recognized as the OT and is divided into three parts: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. This canon is also known as the Tanak, an acronym derived from the Hebrew words for “law” (torah), “prophets” (nebi’im), “writings” (ketubim). This canonical list traditionally includes twenty-four books (the twelve Minor Prophets are considered to be one book, as are 1–2 Samuel, 1–2 Kings, 1–2 Chronicles, and Ezra-Nehemiah). The twenty-four books of this canonical list are the same as the thirty-nine OT books in current English Bible editions. The law or instruction section includes the first five books of Moses (Genesis through Deuteronomy). The Prophets section is divided into the Former and Latter Prophets. The Former Prophets are the historical books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings. The Latter Prophets include both the Major and the Minor Prophets. The Writings section contains both poetic and wisdom material, along with some historical material.

Historical references to this canonical format are found in extrabiblical sources as early as the second century BC. The grandson of Jesus Ben Sira referenced a threefold canon in the prologue of the apocryphal book Sirach (c. 190 BC); Josephus referenced it in Against Apion (AD 37–95). Jesus acknowledged the threefold division in Luke 24:44 (cf. Matt. 23:34). Among Christian sources, this division is preserved in the oldest extant list of OT books, associated with Bishop Melito of Sardis (AD 170). Tertullian, an early Latin church father (AD 160–250), Origen (AD 254), Hilary of Poitiers (AD 305–366), and Jerome (AD 340–420) affirmed an OT canon of twenty-two or twenty-four books. Most current English versions follow a fourfold structure of law, history, poetry, and prophets.

The twenty-seven books of the NT are attested in lists associated with churches in the eastern and western parts of the Mediterranean world. Two such witnesses are the Thirty-ninth Paschal Letter of Athanasius (AD 367) and the Council of Carthage (AD 397). The canonical list associated with Marcion and the Muratorian list represent fragmentary lists from the early part of the second century AD. In terms of usage, a majority of church fathers recognized and used the twenty-seven NT books in our canon. See also Apocrypha, New Testament; Apocrypha, Old Testament.

These books originally formed a single book and were first divided into two in the Greek translation, the LXX. Chronicles tells the history of Israel from the creation of the world to the end of the Babylonian exile, focusing at length on the history of David and Solomon. In Jewish tradition, Chronicles is the last book in the OT, which may be due to its late acceptance into the canon or because it forms a fitting conclusion to the Hebrew Bible. Like Genesis, which opens the canon, Chronicles begins with creation (Gen. 1:1; 1 Chron. 1:1) and ends with a prophecy of a return to the land (Gen. 50:24; 2 Chron. 23) and the hope of redemption.

Authorship

Chronicles does not name anyone as its author. Some have suggested that Ezra, Haggai, Malachi, or Zechariah may have written Chronicles, but such suggestions are pure speculation. It is most common to refer to the author simply as the Chronicler (hereafter, Ch). Ch clearly had scribal training, since he was familiar with the biblical books that preceded his work and had access to archival sources. Other than these broad generalizations, the identity of the author remains anonymous, as he intended.

In the past many believed that Ch also wrote Ezra-Nehemiah because of similarities in language and how Chronicles ends by quoting the opening of Ezra (which implies that they were once connected). Common authorship is unlikely, however, since Ezra-Nehemiah stresses Abram’s election, the exodus, the conquest of the land, and the fall of northern Israel, while Chronicles does not explicitly mention any of these events. Also Ch emphasizes “immediate retribution” (obedience/disobedience brings immediate blessing/punishment), whereas Ezra-Nehemiah allows that good behavior can bring problems rather than blessing (e.g., those building the wall of Jerusalem are persecuted). Also, some differences in terminology may suggest different authors for these books (e.g., Ezra-Nehemiah calls the high priest “great priest,” whereas Chronicles uses the term “head priest”).

Ch primarily used previous OT books as sources, drawing on the Pentateuch and Joshua (for his genealogies) and on Psalms (cf. Pss. 96; 105–106 with 1 Chron. 16:7–36) and Ezra (cf. Ezra 1:1–3 with 2 Chron. 36:22–23). However, Ch relied most heavily on Samuel-Kings, as can be seen by his extensive verbatim quotation of them throughout his stories. Noncanonical sources probably also were employed (e.g., the reference to Hezekiah’s tunnel in 2 Chron. 32:30, which is unparalleled in Kings but is historically accurate), though they do not survive today.

Date

An exact date of composition is not known. However, the mention in 1 Chron. 29:7 of Persian darics (coins), which were not minted until 515 BC, makes a date after 500 BC likely (since we must allow time for the spread of darics throughout the empire). Most telling is Jehoiachin’s genealogy in 1 Chron. 3:17–24 (since the last names listed must predate or be contemporary with Ch), which extends at least six generations after Zerubbabel, making a date around 450 BC (assuming twenty years per generation) the earliest possible date for the composition of Chronicles. Also, Chronicles is likely to have been written before Alexander the Great’s conquest of Palestine in 333 BC, since there is no perceivable Greek influence in Chronicles. Therefore, the date for the composition of Chronicles is most likely between 450 and 333 BC, during the Persian period.

Audience and Historical Background

Some historical background is necessary to understand Chronicles’ purpose and to identify its original audience. In 586 BC Jerusalem was destroyed, and the bulk of the population was deported to Babylon (2 Kings 25); however, the Jewish community in Babylon retained its identity and longed to return home. When Cyrus of Persia conquered Babylon in 539 BC, he offered to send the exiles back to their homeland to rebuild Jerusalem and their temple. Those who returned faced many challenges and struggled with how to rebuild “Israel” in the land that was given to them by God but now was ruled by the Persians and settled by a mixed population. Even with their temple rebuilt and Jerusalem resettled, this community still questioned how their new life would work and what their relationship to God would be like. Chronicles was written for this beleaguered restoration community.

Genre

Chronicles is perhaps best known for its long genealogies, which open the book (1 Chron. 1–9). In addition, there are many lists in other parts of the book that seem to detract from its otherwise interesting narratives. The genre of Chronicles is “historiography” (history writing) as it presents an account of Israel’s past. The nature of the historiography that Ch wrote has been the subject of much debate due to the difficulty of explaining the considerable freedom that Ch exercised in selecting, arranging, and even changing his source material. All written histories involve creative writing, selectivity, and interpretation of sources. Ch’s selectivity can be seen in his omissions—for example, stories that deal only with northern Israel, David’s adultery with Bathsheba and murder of Uriah, and Solomon’s many wives and idolatry. Ch’s selectivity, however, should not be taken as intentional deception on his part, since he probably assumed that his audience knew the full story of David and Solomon’s sin.

Ch’s interpretation of his sources can be seen in how he rewrote 2 Sam. 24:1. The writer of 2 Samuel describes God inciting David to take a census, but Ch holds Satan responsible for inciting him (1 Chron. 21:1). Writing at a later time when it was understood that God worked through divine intermediaries, Ch interpreted his source in light of this new revelation. Just as NT writers quoted the OT interpretively, Ch felt free to make explicit what he saw as implied in his sources.

However, it must be admitted that not all the changes that Ch makes to his sources can be easily explained. It must be remembered that, unlike modern historiography, Chronicles was written with mainly theological interests in mind. If omitting certain stories or writing additions to his narrative were necessary to drive home the message that God wanted him to deliver, that is what Ch did. Such practices were standard procedure in history writing in the ancient world and were acceptable in his day. Yet Ch was constrained by his sources. Despite his desire to highlight David’s role in the establishment of the temple, he could not present David as temple builder, since history recorded that Solomon built the temple. Historiography is a creative attempt to interpret past events and bring out their significance for the present. In this way, Chronicles is definitely historiography, though not the type of historiography that would be written today.

Themes

David and the Davidic kings. The main characters in Chronicles are the Davidic kings. Although the narrative begins with Saul as Israel’s king (1 Chron. 10:1–3), he is quickly disposed of (10:4). David’s kingship is immediately established (without the long struggle to become king as described in 1 Samuel) and is for Israel’s benefit (1 Chron. 14:2). David is presented as the ideal monarch, who sought God with his whole heart and also instituted proper worship. Although Solomon builds the temple, in Chronicles David prepares for its construction (1 Chron. 22) and its administration (1 Chron. 23–25).

Presenting David as the founder of proper worship underscores Ch’s emphasis on the responsibility of Davidic kings to maintain proper worship in Israel. Some kings turned from proper worship (e.g., Manasseh), while others held true and restored it when it had been forsaken (e.g., Josiah). The Davidic king sat on God’s throne (1 Chron. 17:14; 28:5; 29:23) and represented the people in prayer to God (2 Chron. 6:18–42). When northern Israel rejected the Davidic king, they rejected God (2 Chron. 13:4–12). This elevation of the importance of the Davidic monarchy held out hope of a coming Davidic king despite the current situation of Persian rule.

The temple and the Levites. Chronicles focuses on Israel’s relationship to God, which is shown in the emphasis on the Davidic king as Israel’s representative to God but is best expressed through the focus on the temple and its institutions. Chronicles shows how Israel’s relationship to God was dependent on maintaining proper temple worship. The Levitical priesthood together with the Davidic king maintained the worship of God. The Levites even stepped in to preserve the Davidic line when it was threatened (2 Chron. 22:10–23:21), and only they could administer proper worship in the temple (26:16–18). Interestingly, this emphasis on Davidic kings and Levitical priests reflects the conditions of rule under which the original audience lived when they returned from exile (cf. Zech. 2:4).

All Israel. In Chronicles the term “all Israel” is used for northern Israel (2 Chron. 13:4), southern Judah (2 Chron. 11:3), or all the Israelites together (1 Chron. 11:1). For Ch, “Israel” indicates a people who are in a special relationship with God and accountable to him. The Davidic king and the Levitical priests are important, but the people themselves are also accountable to God (e.g., 2 Chron. 11:3–4, 16–17; 13:14; 15:9–15). This allows Ch to emphasize the responsibility of each generation to have a proper relationship with God.

Prophecy

In Chronicles there are many prophets known by the traditional titles “prophet” or “seer,” but also others who speak prophetically but are not designated by such titles. These other prophetic speakers mostly address the people rather than kings (like official prophets) and are portrayed as interpreting and applying earlier prophetic tradition to their current situation. Chronicles represents a transitional stage when the “word of the Lord” is beginning to be seen not only as oral prophecy but also as referring to written prophecies (such as those of Moses) or Scripture (e.g., 2 Chron. 34:21 rewrites 2 Kings 22:13, “the words of this book,” as “the word of the Lord”). This development to written Scripture creates the foundation for both Judaism and Christianity as text-based faiths.

Theological Message

Ch encouraged his community by retelling the old story in new ways. The old story (Samuel-Kings) taught its audience why the exile happened (their sin), but Ch’s audience needed to be assured that God was still interested in them. Chronicles reminds the restoration community of the continuity between preexilic and postexilic times and their heritage as God’s people and heirs of the promises to David. Whereas Samuel-Kings emphasized idolatry as the reason for the exile (2 Kings 17:7–18), Chronicles looks past this surface symptom to the root problem of “forsaking the Lord,” characterized by neglecting their relationship with God through proper worship. “Seeking the Lord” calls for a complete response of his people to him.

Whereas Samuel-Kings explains the exile by the cumulative buildup of the sins of the monarchy (2 Kings 23:26; 24:3), in Chronicles the fate of Israel is never sealed. Any generation can seek God wholeheartedly and thereby receive blessing. The thematic verse for Chronicles is perhaps 2 Chron. 7:14: “If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.” Ch’s message demands a response in the present. In retelling the history of his people, his audience could see the cause-and-effect relationship between seeking and forsaking God and apply it to their current situation. They themselves were “all Israel” and needed to seek God wholeheartedly in proper worship. Only through faithfulness to God would Israel recapture the glory days of its past. In a message as applicable now as it was millennia ago, Chronicles calls for its readers to have a proper relationship with God and holds out expectation that blessing will follow.

Outline

I. Genealogical Prologue: Adam to the Present (1 Chron. 1–9)

II. United Monarchy: Saul, David, and Solomon (1 Chron. 10–2 Chron. 9)

III. The History of Judah: The Later Davidic Kings (2 Chron. 10–36:16)

IV. The Exile and Return (2 Chron. 36:17–23)

These books originally formed a single book and were first divided into separate books in the LXX. The book of Kings recounts the history of Israel from the time of Solomon (c. 970 BC) to the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BC. Kings continues the narrative of 2 Samuel, with 1 Kings 1:1–2:11 concluding the story of David. The book has many references back to David (see the promises to David in 2 Sam. 7:1–17; 1 Kings 8:14–26), and prophecy spoken in earlier books reaches its fulfillment only in Kings (e.g., prophecy against Jericho [Josh. 6:26; 1 Kings 16:34] and against the house of Eli [1 Sam. 2:27–36; 3:11–14; 1 Kings 2:27]), showing that it is actually part of a larger historical work beginning in Joshua and ending in 2 Kings.

Authorship and Date

The book of Kings is anonymous. From the text itself, however, we can deduce a probable situation for its composition. The end of Kings tells the story of the destruction of Jerusalem (c. 586 BC) and the beginning of the Babylonian exile, with the last event narrated (the freeing of Jehoiachin to eat with the Babylonian king) dating to around 560 BC. Therefore, Kings as we know it could not have been composed prior to these events. It is unlikely that the book was written after the exile; otherwise, the author would have referred to the return to Jerusalem. This puts the date of the composition of Kings to the period when Judah was in Babylonian exile and probably between 560 and 539 BC.

However, parts of the book clearly were written before the exile. The author of Kings drew on a variety of sources, three of which are explicitly referred to in the text (though none survive today): “the book of the annals of Solomon” (1 Kings 11:41), “the book of the annals of the kings of Israel” (1 Kings 14:19), and “the book of the annals of the kings of Judah” (1 Kings 14:29). These explicit references to sources direct the reader to information not given in Kings, leaving open the possibility that even more sources were used. The book of Chronicles suggests that prophets who were active in the reigns of the various kings of Judah and Israel were sources for the author of Kings (e.g., 2 Chron. 9:29 lists the prophets Nathan, Ahijah, and Iddo as sources for the history of Solomon). So the Bible itself tells us that multiple sources were used to compose Kings, and that some of these sources stem from God’s prophets. It is no wonder that in Jewish tradition the section of the Bible in which Kings is set has been called the “Former Prophets.”

Some scholars believe that a first edition of Kings was written before the exile and may have come out during King Josiah’s reign (c. 609 BC). Josiah is an important figure in the story: his birth is prophesied (1 Kings 13:2) three hundred years in advance, and he restores true worship, living up to the ideal set by David (2 Kings 22:2; 23:25). Josiah’s religious reforms may have originally been the climax to this first edition of Kings, which hoped that Josiah would fulfill the Davidic promises and was written to support Josiah’s reforms. After the exile, this preexilic book was updated in light of the apostasy of the later kings of Judah in order to explain that the destruction of Jerusalem resulted from the sins of these kings (e.g., 2 Kings 24:3). This second edition of Kings is what came to be the canonical book of Kings as we know it.

Genre

The genre of Kings is clearly that of historiography (history writing), as it presents an account of Israel’s past. Kings is an extraordinary literary achievement. Prior to its composition, there was nothing that can properly be called “history writing” in the ancient world. Since the writing of Samuel–Kings predates Greek historiography, many scholars view them as the first history ever written.

When treating Kings as history, we must remember that it is not history as we would write it today. The author had chiefly theological reasons for his selection of material, and at times he refers to divine causation to the exclusion of any human factors. For example, 2 Kings 15:37 says that God sent the kings of Aram and Israel against Judah, but it does not comment on the political reasons for the attack (such reasons surely would have existed). Conversely, modern historiography would focus solely on the human reasons for an event and exclude any possible divine causation. In this way, Kings does not live up to the standard of history writing as practiced today, though as ancient history writing it is an exemplar.

The history contained within Kings has been corroborated by extrabiblical material in many ways and fits well into an overall ancient Near Eastern historical context. For example, the names of many of the kings referred to in the book have also been found in ancient Assyrian sources. Kings, however, does not agree perfectly with what we otherwise know about the history of the ancient Near East, and some adjustment is necessary to make it fit with other evidence. However, if the partial nature of archaeological evidence and the acknowledgment of the selectivity of the author of Kings are taken into account, radical distrust of its history is not justified, as it proves itself quite trustworthy.

Style

Kings is brilliantly written and contains some of the most memorable stories in the Bible. Although it is a historical writing, Kings, like any good novel, contains both round (e.g., Ahab) and flat (e.g., Omri) characters. Its plot is compelling as it tells the history of the kingship in Israel from its apex under Solomon in all his glory down to the loss of the kingdom, already foreshadowed in 1 Kings 9:6–9. It begins as a story about one nation under God, but it becomes the tragic story of two nations that continually turn away from their God only to finally be judged by him.

The Plan of the Book

Kings gives an account of each of the kings of Israel and Judah, noting when he began to reign, his age at accession, the length of his reign, the name of his mother, and an evaluation of his reign. The evaluation of each king is concerned not with economics or military success; rather, the kings are judged either to have “done evil in the Lord’s sight” or to have “done what was right in the Lord’s sight,” depending on their faithfulness to God and the purity of the nation’s worship. The gauge for judging the kings is the law of Deuteronomy. According to Deuteronomy, God should be worshiped only in the “place the Lord will choose” (Deut. 12:26; see also vv. 5, 11, 14, 18), making worship at other sanctuaries illegitimate. Proper worship of God is without the use of aids such as images (e.g., “calves” [1 Kings 12:28–30] or “snakes” [2 Kings 18:4]) or poles, stone pillars, etc.). Deuteronomy heavily influenced Kings and is quoted several times (e.g., 1 Kings 11:2; 2 Kings 14:6). In fact, the law book found during Josiah’s reign (2 Kings 22:8) appears to be a form of the book of Deuteronomy (as evidenced by the character of the reforms). Due to this influence, the books of Deuteronomy through 2 Kings are widely referred to as the Deuteronomistic History.

Themes

Wholehearted reliance on God. Kings is primarily concerned with proper worship and faithfulness to God. David set the standard of having a heart “fully devoted to the Lord” (1 Kings 15:3) and is the measuring stick by which all the southern kings are judged. Thus, Solomon is contrasted with David when Solomon falls away from God (1 Kings 11:4), and when Hez-e-kiah trusts in God, he is compared with David (2 Kings 18:3). In northern Israel Jeroboam and Ahab are the models of the degenerate king. Jeroboam is known for setting up golden calves (1 Kings 12:28) in northern Israel to be used in the worship of Yahweh, and Ahab is infamous for his promotion of Baal worship in Israel (1 Kings 16:30–33). In Kings, when kings of Israel are assessed, they are often said to partake in Jeroboam’s sins (2 Kings 10:31) or judged for doing “as Ahab king of Israel had done” (2 Kings 21:3; see also 8:18, 27; 21:3). This apostasy culminates in the destruction of the northern kingdom by Assyria in 722 BC (2 Kings 17).

Exclusive commitment to Yahweh meant that the worship of other gods was the worst sin of the Israelite kings, and their fortunes were connected to their policies regarding the worship of Yahweh. Throughout its story, Kings contrasts the themes of apostasy and religious reform. Beginning with Jeroboam, most of the kings are apostates and fail to worship properly. Four Judean Kings (Asa, Jehoshaphat, Amaziah, and Azariah) undertake some religious reforms, but they fall short of the ideal. Near the end of the story, two Judean kings fulfill the ideal: Hezekiah and Josiah. Yet following their reforms the next king turns to even greater apostasy, bringing God’s judgment on the nation.

The fulfillment of the prophetic word. Prophets are prominent in the story of Kings, with both famous (Isaiah, Elijah, Elisha) and anonymous prophets (e.g., 1 Kings 13) playing important roles as bearers of the prophetic word of God. Many short-term prophecies are fulfilled in the story of Kings (e.g., 1 Kings 13:11–32), where the reader can perceive a pattern of prophecy and fulfillment that helps to structure the story of Kings. The way a prophecy is fulfilled is often surprising (see the prophecy of 1 Kings 20:42 and its fulfillment in 1 Kings 22:34–35). The prediction of Josiah’s birth and reform centuries in advance ties together the beginning of Kings with one of the most significant events near the end of the book. This shows how historical events are at the mercy of the Lord of history and his prophetic word.

New Testament Connections

Throughout Kings the southern kingdom of Judah has Davidic kings on the throne right up until the exile (compared to the northern kingdom of Israel, which changed dynasties ten times). However, the destruction of Jerusalem appears to end the Davidic dynasty. Will the promises to David ever come true? The concluding paragraph at the end of Kings, which describes Jehoiachin, the last king from David’s line, being freed from prison and allowed to eat with the Babylonian king, is messianic and holds out hope that the promises to David will be fulfilled. Jehoiachin represents the hope for the future deliverance of Israel and of the world. In 2 Kings 25:28 it is told how the new king of Babylon “spoke kindly to [Jehoiachin] and gave him a seat of honor higher than those of the other kings who were with him in Babylon.” Here, the Hebrew word for “seat of honor” is literally the word for “throne.” Thus, Kings ends with a son of David on the throne! The promises to David are still intact. The line of Judah survives, and a tiny shoot has begun to sprout from the stump of David, which will culminate in the Messiah himself. The promise that a son of David would rule is never again fulfilled, except in Jesus Christ, who is now at the right hand of the throne of God and will return one day.

Outline

I. The United Monarchy: The Reign of Solomon (1 Kings 1:1–11:25)

II. The Division of the Kingdom (1 Kings 11:26–14:31)

III. The Divided Kingdoms of Israel and Judah (1 Kings 15:1–16:22)

IV. The Dynasty of Omri and the Baal Cult in Israel and Judah (1 Kings 16:23–2 Kings 12)

V. The Divided Kingdoms of Israel and Judah (2 Kings 13–16)

VI. The Fall of Israel (2 Kings 17)

VII. The Kingdom of Judah Alone (2 Kings 18–23)

VIII. The Fall of Judah (2 Kings 24–25)

Bible formation and canon development are best understood in light of historical events and theological principles. In the historical-theological process we learn what God did and how he engaged a variety of people to produce Scripture as the word of God. The Bible is the written revelation of the triune God, who made himself known to his creation. The divine actions of God to reveal himself resulted in a written text recognized to be authoritative and thus copied and preserved for future generations. The process of recognizing and collecting authoritative books of the Scriptures occurred over time and involved consensus.

Bible Formation

Revelation. The process of Bible formation begins with God revealing. The act of revelation involved God communicating truth to the human writers in a progressive and unified manner. Inspiration is the act of God the Holy Spirit, who superintended the biblical authors so that they composed the books of Scripture exactly as he intended. God used the biblical writers, their personalities and their writing styles, in a manner that kept them from error in composing the original written product, the Scriptures. The resulting books of the Bible constitute God’s permanent special revelation to humankind.

Both Testaments affirm the work of revelation along with the formation of a body of divine writings. The OT is dominated by the phrase “thus says the Lord” and similar expressions (cf. Gen. 9:8; Josh. 24:27; Isa. 1:2; Jer. 1:7 and contrast Ps. 135:15–19). Every part of the OT is viewed as the word of God (Rom. 3:2). This is confirmed by Jesus’ attitude toward the Scriptures (Matt. 19:4–5; 21:42; 22:29; cf. Luke 11:50–51; 24:44).

Four NT passages help us understand the work of inspiration. A factual statement regarding the extent and nature of inspiration is made in 2 Tim. 3:16. According to 2 Pet. 1:19–20, the Holy Spirit purposefully carried persons along to produce the prophetic word, and 1 Cor. 2:10–13 supports the choice of the words in the work of composing the inspired product. Finally, Peter comments that Paul was given wisdom to produce inspired literary documents in the canon of Scripture (2 Pet. 3:14–18).

Authority. Books formed and authored by God in this manner are authoritative. Because the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God reliably composed in the originals, it is binding upon people in their relationship with God and other people. Biblical authority derives from God’s eternal character and the content of his word preserved in Scripture. The inscripturated word of God is authoritative and requires obedience.

The authority of God’s word is affirmed and illustrated in the creation and fall narratives. In the fall, Adam and Eve rebelled against God’s command (Gen. 3:3–4) and were expelled from the garden. In subsequent periods of biblical history, God’s spoken and written word continued to be the basis for belief and conduct. God summarized his will in the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:1-17; Deut. 5:6–21) and held his people accountable to it (Deut. 6:2; Josh. 1:8; 2 Kings 17:5–23). The authoritative word embraced by faith protects the believer from sin (Ps. 119:11). The fool is the person who rejects God’s authority (Pss. 14:1; 53:1). The apostle Paul acknowledged the authority of the gospel for his own life and ministry (Gal. 1:6–9). God the Holy Spirit impresses upon the believer the authority of the Bible as the reliable rule for faith and practice (John 6:63).

God made provision for a reliable and trustworthy preservation of his authoritative word in the multiplicity of extant manuscripts. God commanded that his revealed word be copied (Deut. 17:8–18; 24:8; 31:9, 25–26; 33:8–10) for administrative and personal purposes (Deut. 6:6; Josh. 1:8; 23:6; Prov. 3:3; 7:3). Through this process of multiplication the word of God was preserved (Ps. 119:152, 160; Isa. 40:8; cf. Matt. 5:17–18; John 10:35; 1 Pet. 1:22–25).

Canonization

Canonization is the next critical step in the development of the Bible. The word “canon” (Gk. kanōn) refers to a standard, norm, or rule (Gal. 6:16; cf. Ezek. 42:16), and when applied to the Bible, it designates the collection of books revealed by God, divinely inspired, and recognized by the people of God as the authoritative norm for faith and practice. The presupposition of canonicity is that God spoke to his human creatures and his word was accurately recorded. Since inspiration determines canonicity, the books composed by human beings under the direction of the Holy Spirit functioned authoritatively at the time of writing. The people of God then recognized and collected the books that they discerned to be inspired and authoritative (1 Thess. 2:10–16; 2 Pet. 3:15).

The canonical process. The challenge associated with canon and Bible formation is that the Scriptures do not reveal a detailed historical process for recognizing and collecting inspired works. An understanding of this process is derived from the testimony of Jesus, biblical principles, and historical precedents.

Canonical identification is associated with the witness of the Holy Spirit, who worked in connection with the believers to recognize the written documents given by inspiration (1 Thess. 2:13). The Holy Spirit enabled believers to discern a book’s authority and its compatibility with existing canonical revelation (Isa. 8:20; Acts 17:11). Although the question of authorship cannot be positively settled for every OT or NT book, believers recognized the prophets as the OT authors (Deut. 18:14–22) and the apostles as the NT authors. Canonical books were recognized to bear the power of God and to contain an effective message (2 Tim. 3:15–16; Heb. 4:12; 1 Pet. 1:23).

Over time, the authoritative books of Scripture were collected into a body of literature that today forms one book, the Bible. During this process, some believers struggled with the message, content, and ambiguous authorship of books such as Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, and Esther in the OT and Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter in the NT. The pattern of composition and canonical process for the OT provided the foundation for the composition and development of the NT canon. Therefore, the NT books that came to be recognized as canonical were those that were composed in connection with an apostle, doctrinally sound, and widely circulated and used by the churches.

In the collection task some texts were recognized (homologoumena), some were disputed (antilegomena), and others were rejected as unorthodox (pseudepigrapha). Historically, there is no evidence for widespread acceptance of the present-day canon of sixty-six books until the third century AD.

Structure and content. Over the centuries, several canonical lists began to emerge, often influenced by particular theological conclusions. For example, the Samaritan canon, which includes only the first five books of our OT, was compiled by the Samaritans, who were hostile to anything in Israel or Judea outside Samaria. Today, Christian traditions vary in their inclusion or omission of the Apocrypha from their Bibles and in their list of which books are contained in the Apocrypha.

The Babylonian canon, accepted as standard by Jews, contains all the books now recognized as the OT and is divided into three parts: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. This canon is also known as the Tanak, an acronym derived from the Hebrew words for “law” (torah), “prophets” (nebi’im), “writings” (ketubim). This canonical list traditionally includes twenty-four books (the twelve Minor Prophets are considered to be one book, as are 1–2 Samuel, 1–2 Kings, 1–2 Chronicles, and Ezra-Nehemiah). The twenty-four books of this canonical list are the same as the thirty-nine OT books in current English Bible editions. The law or instruction section includes the first five books of Moses (Genesis through Deuteronomy). The Prophets section is divided into the Former and Latter Prophets. The Former Prophets are the historical books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings. The Latter Prophets include both the Major and the Minor Prophets. The Writings section contains both poetic and wisdom material, along with some historical material.

Historical references to this canonical format are found in extrabiblical sources as early as the second century BC. The grandson of Jesus Ben Sira referenced a threefold canon in the prologue of the apocryphal book Sirach (c. 190 BC); Josephus referenced it in Against Apion (AD 37–95). Jesus acknowledged the threefold division in Luke 24:44 (cf. Matt. 23:34). Among Christian sources, this division is preserved in the oldest extant list of OT books, associated with Bishop Melito of Sardis (AD 170). Tertullian, an early Latin church father (AD 160–250), Origen (AD 254), Hilary of Poitiers (AD 305–366), and Jerome (AD 340–420) affirmed an OT canon of twenty-two or twenty-four books. Most current English versions follow a fourfold structure of law, history, poetry, and prophets.

The twenty-seven books of the NT are attested in lists associated with churches in the eastern and western parts of the Mediterranean world. Two such witnesses are the Thirty-ninth Paschal Letter of Athanasius (AD 367) and the Council of Carthage (AD 397). The canonical list associated with Marcion and the Muratorian list represent fragmentary lists from the early part of the second century AD. In terms of usage, a majority of church fathers recognized and used the twenty-seven NT books in our canon. See also Apocrypha, New Testament; Apocrypha, Old Testament.

The Diaspora (or the Dispersion) generally refers to Jews living outside the land of Israel. Especially by the first century AD, Jews lived throughout the Mediterranean world and Mesopotamia. Large populations of Jews lived in Egypt and in Babylon/Persia. Two Jewish communities in Egypt established temples: at Elephantine sometime from the fifth through the fourth centuries BC, and at Leontopolis in the second century BC.

According to 2 Kings 17:1–41, the first major relocation of Israelites occurred forcibly around 722 BC, when Samaria fell to Sargon II, king of Assyria. As punishment for breaking their subject obligations to Assyria, Sargon deported many Israelites elsewhere in the Assyrian Empire, a usual Assyrian practice. The Bible also records the deportations of Judeans by Babylon around the end of the seventh and beginning of the sixth century BC (2 Kings 24–25; Jer. 21; 25; 27; 29; 39; 52). It explains these forced dispersions, or exiles, as punishments for breaking covenant obligations to Yahweh (Lev. 26:31–39; Deut. 28:64–67). The Bible also notes some Jews relocating voluntarily (Jer. 40–43). Voluntary relocations likely constitute the primary source for Jews in the Diaspora.

According to Acts, Christianity’s spread was inseparably tied to the Diaspora. The initial large “conversion” that Acts records, at Pentecost, involves Jews from the Diaspora who have traveled to Jerusalem for the festival (Acts 2:5–13). Throughout the rest of Acts, the apostles and missionaries find refuge and audiences among many Diaspora Jewish communities. Even after Paul declares that he will turn to the Gentiles because the Jews have rejected the message (Acts 13:44–52), Diaspora communities continue to provide travel destinations and audiences for him (e.g., Acts 17:1–4, 10–12, 17; 18:1–11, 19; 28:17–30). Some NT authors label their recipients as those in the Diaspora (or Dispersion), perhaps a Christianizing deployment of the term (James 1:1; 1 Pet. 1:1–2).

The books of Genesis through Esther in the OT and Matthew through Acts in the NT often are categorized as history. However, in the ancient world the literary genre of history in the modern sense did not exist. Moreover, the English word “history” is ambiguous and can refer to either the events of the past or verbal accounts of these events. For the sake of clarity, this article refers to verbal accounts of the past as historiography and to the events themselves as history. Historiography is a genre wherein a nation or group attempts to render an account of its collective past. Biblical historiography was a creative attempt to depict and interpret events of the past, constrained by its sources (and inspired by the Holy Spirit), emphasizing Israel’s and the church’s relationship with God. The historian engaged in research, gathering information from oral or written sources, then recorded his findings in a unified narrative. This process set apart ancient historians from storytellers; however, ancient historiography was in fact closer to storytelling than modern history writing.

Methods of Ancient Historiography

Biblical writers used techniques similar to those of ancient Greek historians. Greek historiography was often organized thematically, using genealogies, speeches, or narrative formulas as structuring devices, instead of strictly following chronological order. Speeches were largely the creative work of the historian rather than being drawn from transcripts in sources. Also, both the overall content and particular details of the narrative were subject to the historian’s interpretation of the events. This same historical method can be illustrated by the following biblical examples.

Second Kings 20:12–19 describes Hezekiah showing off the riches of Jerusalem to his Babylonian visitors. However, the preceding narrative describes the loss of the riches of Jerusalem to an invading Assyrian king (18:15–16). Also, in 2 Kings 20:6 Isaiah predicts that Jerusalem will be delivered from “the hand of the king of Assyria,” but this deliverance has already been recorded in 2 Kings 19. This suggests, and extrabiblical evidence confirms, that the history of 2 Kings 20 actually took place before the history of 2 Kings 18–19.

In the books of Joshua through Kings, speeches are used as structuring devices, with main characters emphasizing the central theological points of the author at key points in his story (e.g., Josh. 1:11–15 [Joshua]; 1 Sam. 12 [Samuel]; 1 Kings 8:14–61 [Solomon]). All these speeches use distinctive vocabulary, suggesting that the same author composed them. Since the writer was not present at the occasion of these speeches (as they occurred long before his birth), he composed the speech (inventing much of the wording) according to what he thought appropriate to the given situation. The creative contributions of each historian can be clearly seen when a speech is recorded in two or more biblical books (compare the Beatitudes in Matt. 5:1–12 and Luke 6:20–26, or the prayer of Solomon in 1 Kings 8:22–53 and 2 Chron. 6:12–39). This is not to say that the speeches are historically misleading, but they were necessarily composed to present a narrative of the past. All historiography, ancient and modern, involves creative writing, selectivity, and interpretation of sources.

In comparison to its OT counterpart, NT historiography was written quite close to the events that it records, but it still shows great variation in descriptive details. For example, the resurrection narrative in Matt. 28:2 mentions one angel, Mark 16:5 refers to a young man, Luke 24:4 speaks of two men, and John 20:12 mentions two angels. Rather than indicating the fictional nature of the event, the differences are due to the interpretation that guided their writing (i.e., the person near Christ’s tomb, appearing to be human to some, was interpreted as an angel by others). When dealing with OT narratives, which often chronicle events from the distant past, we must remember that its historiography is interpretative in nature and does not attempt to merely recount what happened as objectively as possible. For example, 2 Kings 15:37 records an attack against Judah by foreign kings; however, the author does not describe any reasons for the attack, simply saying, “In those days the Lord began to send Rezin king of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah against Judah.” While no doubt there were indeed political reasons for the attack, the author does not comment on these reasons but instead gives a theological interpretation to explain it. In fact, theological reasons for past events and their relevance for the present and the future characterize biblical historiography. The ultimate explanation for historical events is God and his providential mastery of history.

The Function and Reliability of Biblical Historiography

Biblical historiography emphasizes continuity with the past by viewing the present as continuing the past’s story and focusing on cause-and-effect relationships in the past to explain the present and bring out a theological message for its readers. For example, 2 Kings 17 describes the Assyrians destroying northern Israel and deporting its population. This is as much as a modern historian would derive from the event. However, in the Bible this event is significant because “all this took place because the Israelites had sinned against the Lord their God. . . . They worshiped other gods” (2 Kings 17:7). This interpretation is elaborated in the chapter, dominating vv. 7–23, while the narration of the event itself is succinctly described in vv. 3–6. The theological interpretation of the event was more important than the event itself.

This does not mean that biblical historiography is fictitious, as it is clearly based on actual events that took place in the past. Biblical historiography has been largely corroborated by extrabiblical material and fits well into an overall ancient Near Eastern historical context, though it does not agree perfectly with everything we know about ancient history. Since recognizing the genre (e.g., parable, poem) of any biblical passage is imperative for correct interpretation, knowledge of the differences between ancient and modern historiography is vital for understanding the historical books of the Bible. Scripture affirms that God spoke in a variety of ways (Heb. 1:1); one way was through the genre of historiography.

The books of Genesis through Esther in the OT and Matthew through Acts in the NT often are categorized as history. However, in the ancient world the literary genre of history in the modern sense did not exist. Moreover, the English word “history” is ambiguous and can refer to either the events of the past or verbal accounts of these events. For the sake of clarity, this article refers to verbal accounts of the past as historiography and to the events themselves as history. Historiography is a genre wherein a nation or group attempts to render an account of its collective past. Biblical historiography was a creative attempt to depict and interpret events of the past, constrained by its sources (and inspired by the Holy Spirit), emphasizing Israel’s and the church’s relationship with God. The historian engaged in research, gathering information from oral or written sources, then recorded his findings in a unified narrative. This process set apart ancient historians from storytellers; however, ancient historiography was in fact closer to storytelling than modern history writing.

Methods of Ancient Historiography

Biblical writers used techniques similar to those of ancient Greek historians. Greek historiography was often organized thematically, using genealogies, speeches, or narrative formulas as structuring devices, instead of strictly following chronological order. Speeches were largely the creative work of the historian rather than being drawn from transcripts in sources. Also, both the overall content and particular details of the narrative were subject to the historian’s interpretation of the events. This same historical method can be illustrated by the following biblical examples.

Second Kings 20:12–19 describes Hezekiah showing off the riches of Jerusalem to his Babylonian visitors. However, the preceding narrative describes the loss of the riches of Jerusalem to an invading Assyrian king (18:15–16). Also, in 2 Kings 20:6 Isaiah predicts that Jerusalem will be delivered from “the hand of the king of Assyria,” but this deliverance has already been recorded in 2 Kings 19. This suggests, and extrabiblical evidence confirms, that the history of 2 Kings 20 actually took place before the history of 2 Kings 18–19.

In the books of Joshua through Kings, speeches are used as structuring devices, with main characters emphasizing the central theological points of the author at key points in his story (e.g., Josh. 1:11–15 [Joshua]; 1 Sam. 12 [Samuel]; 1 Kings 8:14–61 [Solomon]). All these speeches use distinctive vocabulary, suggesting that the same author composed them. Since the writer was not present at the occasion of these speeches (as they occurred long before his birth), he composed the speech (inventing much of the wording) according to what he thought appropriate to the given situation. The creative contributions of each historian can be clearly seen when a speech is recorded in two or more biblical books (compare the Beatitudes in Matt. 5:1–12 and Luke 6:20–26, or the prayer of Solomon in 1 Kings 8:22–53 and 2 Chron. 6:12–39). This is not to say that the speeches are historically misleading, but they were necessarily composed to present a narrative of the past. All historiography, ancient and modern, involves creative writing, selectivity, and interpretation of sources.

In comparison to its OT counterpart, NT historiography was written quite close to the events that it records, but it still shows great variation in descriptive details. For example, the resurrection narrative in Matt. 28:2 mentions one angel, Mark 16:5 refers to a young man, Luke 24:4 speaks of two men, and John 20:12 mentions two angels. Rather than indicating the fictional nature of the event, the differences are due to the interpretation that guided their writing (i.e., the person near Christ’s tomb, appearing to be human to some, was interpreted as an angel by others). When dealing with OT narratives, which often chronicle events from the distant past, we must remember that its historiography is interpretative in nature and does not attempt to merely recount what happened as objectively as possible. For example, 2 Kings 15:37 records an attack against Judah by foreign kings; however, the author does not describe any reasons for the attack, simply saying, “In those days the Lord began to send Rezin king of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah against Judah.” While no doubt there were indeed political reasons for the attack, the author does not comment on these reasons but instead gives a theological interpretation to explain it. In fact, theological reasons for past events and their relevance for the present and the future characterize biblical historiography. The ultimate explanation for historical events is God and his providential mastery of history.

The Function and Reliability of Biblical Historiography

Biblical historiography emphasizes continuity with the past by viewing the present as continuing the past’s story and focusing on cause-and-effect relationships in the past to explain the present and bring out a theological message for its readers. For example, 2 Kings 17 describes the Assyrians destroying northern Israel and deporting its population. This is as much as a modern historian would derive from the event. However, in the Bible this event is significant because “all this took place because the Israelites had sinned against the Lord their God. . . . They worshiped other gods” (2 Kings 17:7). This interpretation is elaborated in the chapter, dominating vv. 7–23, while the narration of the event itself is succinctly described in vv. 3–6. The theological interpretation of the event was more important than the event itself.

This does not mean that biblical historiography is fictitious, as it is clearly based on actual events that took place in the past. Biblical historiography has been largely corroborated by extrabiblical material and fits well into an overall ancient Near Eastern historical context, though it does not agree perfectly with everything we know about ancient history. Since recognizing the genre (e.g., parable, poem) of any biblical passage is imperative for correct interpretation, knowledge of the differences between ancient and modern historiography is vital for understanding the historical books of the Bible. Scripture affirms that God spoke in a variety of ways (Heb. 1:1); one way was through the genre of historiography.

The act of killing a human being as an offering to a deity in a religious ritual.

In the OT, human sacrifice is most closely associated with the worship of Molek, a Canaanite deity of Phoenician origin. Molek’s name in Scripture is derived from the Hebrew word for “king,” melek, but using the vowel pattern of bosheth, which means “shame.” Human sacrifice was not limited to Molek; it was also part of Chemosh (Moabite) and Baal (Canaanite) worship (2 Kings 3:27; Jer. 19:5), as well as rituals practiced before other regional gods. There is enough fluidity in names and details to suggest that these traditions were somewhat intertwined.

The practice of sacrifice to Molek is literally described as causing one’s son or daughter “to pass through the fire.” Such a thing was forbidden to Israel (Lev. 18:21; 20:2–5) and was called both a “detestable practice” and “detestable to the Lord” (Deut. 18:9–12). The shedding of innocent blood, a broader category of sin, was also prohibited (Deut. 19:10). Despite its gross offense, human sacrifice became a snare for Israel because it was so routine in Canaan, even though it was among the reasons given to them for driving the Canaanites out of the land (Ps. 106:34–39).

Indeed, like the Canaanites, the Israelites did sacrifice their children to idols. Solomon built high places for Chemosh and Molek (1 Kings 11:7). Ahaz sacrificed his son to Molek in Judah (2 Kings 16:3; 2 Chron. 28:1–4) according to the practices of the kings of Israel (2 Kings 17:17–18). So too did Manasseh (2 Kings 21:6; 2 Chron. 33:6), whose sins also more broadly included shedding innocent blood (2 Kings 21:6, 16; 24:4; 2 Chron. 33:6).

The Valley of Ben Hinnom in Jerusalem, located below the south wall of the city, extending from the base of Mount Zion eastward to the Kidron Valley, was a site for human sacrifices (Isa. 57:5). The specific place was called “Topheth,” either from a Hebrew word meaning “drum,” a reference to the priests of Molek banging instruments to drown out the screams of the child victims, or from an Aramaic loanword for “hearth,” communicating burning. In NT times, the same valley was known in Greek as Gehenna (geenna) and was used as a dump for burning refuse and a metaphor for hell.

After the fall of the northern kingdom, Josiah’s reforms included desecrating Topheth to stop the heinous idolatry (2 Kings 23:10). It did not last, however, as Jeremiah later prophesied on location that the Valley of Ben Hinnom would be renamed the “Valley of Slaughter” as a result of the despicable burning of children, and that the nation would be smashed for its great sins (Jer. 7:31–32; 19:1–14; 32:35). His prophecies were echoed by Ezekiel, whose passionate anger at Judah spilled over into shocking, attention-grabbing rhetoric as Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians (Ezek. 16:20–21; 20:26, 31; 23:37–39).

Elsewhere, the Bible alludes to human sacrifice before God. God commanded the offering of Isaac by Abraham as a test of Abraham’s devotion and obedience; and once Abraham passed the test, God stopped the sacrifice. A ram served as the substitute (Gen. 22:1–18). One possible reason for the matter-of-fact tone of the story is that Abraham lived in a context where such demands were not unexpected. What made Abraham’s God different was that he stopped the sacrifice.

A more difficult event is Jephthah’s sacrifice of his daughter in keeping with a rash vow that he made to God before battling the Ammonites (Judg. 11:30–40). There is no easy explanation for his gruesome vow fulfillment, which, this time, God did not miraculously stop. However, Jephthah’s actions are consistent with the book of Judges’ presentation of the Israelites as progressively descending into Canaan-like depravity because they had forgotten both God and his covenant.

Other instances that have been cited as examples of human sacrifice are more consistent with divine justice and retribution than with expiation (1 Sam. 15:17–21, 32–33; 2 Sam. 21:1–14).

A sacred or standing stone, also called a “pillar” (Heb. matsebah). These objects often are associated with cultic practice and covenant-making ceremonies. Jacob erected a pillar in commemoration of the site where God appeared to him in a theophany (Gen. 28:18–22; 35:14). When Jacob and Laban made a covenant, the pillar acted as a witness between them (Gen. 31:45–52). Likewise, when Moses descended from the mountain after the Sinai theophany, he erected twelve pillars along with an altar (Exod. 24:4–8). This is consistent with the archaeological picture from the Iron Age II period (1000–586 BC) at Arad, where a small temple was found with two pillars and incense altars.

These were also condemned objects in Israelite religion, associated with Asherah poles, images, and altars (Exod. 34:13; Lev. 26:1; Deut. 7:5; 12:3; 16:22). The erection of these by later kings is also cited as a cause of the exile, probably because some began to worship them (2 Kings 17:10).