(1) Son of Eliab who, along with his brother Dathan and Korah and On, was an instigator of a Levite rebellion against Moses and Aaron. The earth opened up and swallowed them and their families (Num. 16:1–50; 26:9; Deut. 11:6; Ps. 106:17). (2) Son of Hiel of Bethel, who rebuilt Jericho, laying its foundations “at the cost of his firstborn son Abiram,” which may be a reference to child sacrifice (1 Kings 16:34).

A Moabite deity, sometimes translated as “Baal of Peor” (see Num. 25), who was a local manifestation of the West Semitic god Baal. While the Israelites were staying in the region of Mount Peor in Moab, they were seduced by the Moabites into sexual immorality and the worship of Baal Peor. This incident is referenced in biblical literature several times as a paradigm of Israel’s sin and God’s judgment (Deut. 4:3; Josh. 22:17; Ps. 106:28; Hos. 9:10 [where Baal Peor is treated as a place name]).

An uncastrated male bovine. The bull was an important symbol of the divine in Canaanite religion, and the infamous “golden calves” that were worshiped by the Israelites at Mount Sinai and then at Dan and Bethel were manifestations of this theology (see Ps. 106:20). In Ugaritic religion the god El was associated with the bull, and the god Baal with a bull calf. A cult stand found at the Israelite site of Ta’anach features a bull, possibly in connection with the worship of Yahweh, of the type condemned in the Bible. Although the Bible generally condemns the use of the bull as a depiction of the God of Israel, bull images were featured in the furnishings of Solomon’s temple, including the twelve metal bulls that supported the Sea (1 Kings 7:25). Ahaz later sent these valuable objects as tribute to the king of Assyria (2 Kings 16:17).

Bulls were used in several important sacrifices, including in the consecration of priests (Exod. 29:1–37), the sin offering (Lev. 4:3), the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:3), and the festivals of Weeks (Lev. 23:18), New Year (Lev. 28:11), Passover (Lev. 28:19), First Fruits (Lev. 28:27), and Booths (Lev. 29:13).

Bulls are powerful and dangerous animals (Ps. 22:12), and Israelite and Mesopotamian law codes mandated penalties for the owner of a bull that had harmed a person (Exod. 21:28–32) or another animal (Exod. 21:35–36).

In Gen. 3 the serpent entices humankind to sin. Not until Rev. 12:9 are we told explicitly that the serpent is Satan. In English, “Satan” is a name, whereas in the Bible this entity does not have a name. Rather, he is identified through a system of descriptive name-calling labels. In Hebrew, satan means “opponent”—in war, an enemy; in court, an accuser. The verb satan means “to be an adversary, to oppose” someone or something. Most commonly, satan refers to human enemies, and so 1 Chron. 21:1 simply refers to “an enemy” (not “Satan,” as the NIV reads) who “rose up against Israel” (cf. 1 Kings 11:14). It is only as “the satan” (Job 1–2; Zech. 3:1–2; NIV: “Satan”) that we meet the one we know from the NT as “the devil.”

The widely held myth of Satan having been an angel who rebelled is not found in the Bible. Origen (AD 185–254) was the first to allegorize Isa. 14:3–23 and Ezek. 28:1–10 in this way, and Jerome (AD 345–420) the first to translate “the Morning Star” as the name “Lucifer” (cf. Isa. 14:12; Rev. 22:16). The Bible tells us nothing of Satan’s origins.

In the OT, “evil spirit” may be a heavenly being sent by God (1 Sam. 16:14–23; 18:10; 19:9; cf. 1 Kings 22:22–23). The OT engages in extensive rebuke of the superstitions of the surrounding nations that included belief in demons (Deut. 32:17; Ps. 106:37; perhaps Isa. 13:21; cf. Rev. 18:2).

Around 200 BC, works falsely attributed to Enoch began to appear, presenting evil and mortality as essential aspects of all physical creatures. Understanding “sons of God” (Gen. 6:1–4) as angels, these books tell of angels marrying women and producing murderous giants. In response, God imprisoned the fallen angels, caused the giants to slaughter one another, and cleansed the earth with the flood. The spirits of the giants then reappear as demons having control of the Gentile nations, appearing to them as gods, worshiped as idols. The book Jubilees (c. 160 BC) introduced a leader of these demons and labeled him “Mastema” (“hatred, enmity”).

Picking up on these ideas, the Qumran literature speaks of many satans and expands the number of abusive labels used to refer to the ruler of the demons—for example, “Belial” (“worthless one”). In the same way, the LXX uses “slanderer” (diabolos) as a translation of satan. The word satan also was taken over into LXX Greek as a loanword to mean “enemy” or “adversary” (1 Kings 11:14). Both satanas and diabolos are used in the NT.

Jesus’ encounter with the devil in the wilderness recalls Adam and Eve’s encounter with the serpent in Eden. The setting, significantly, is now a wasteland. The second man to walk the earth with no sin claims the right to take back the dominion that Adam passed to the serpent. Jesus can have the whole world (without the cross) if only he will submit to the devil’s rule (Luke 4:5–7). Jesus rejects the offer. Later, he sees Satan’s fall from heaven to earth (Luke 10:18; cf. Rev. 12:5–12). Whereas once the devil had access to God’s courtroom, now his case is lost. His only recourse is murderous persecution. Between the ascension of the Son of Man (Acts 1:9) and the final judgment, this is understood to be the experience of Christ’s people (Dan. 7:25; Rev. 12:17; cf. 1 Pet. 5:8).

Whereas the OT provides sparse information about Satan and his angels/demons, the NT opens with an intensity of activity. Demons are also called “evil spirits,” and they are associated with physical illness, madness, and fortune-telling. In Acts 17:22 Paul describes his pagan Athenian listeners as “demon-fearers” (NIV: “religious”). Jesus’ miracles demonstrate his lordship over Satan’s regime as the demons flee in terror before him (Mark 1:23–26; 5:1–15). According to Paul, Christians are temples of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19), and John urges believers to “test the spirits to see whether they are from God” (1 John 4:1), assuring them that they need not fear Satan or his forces, “because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world” (1 John 4:4). On judgment day Satan will be cast into the lake of fire (Rev. 20:14–15) along with all of God’s enemies.

In Gen. 3 the serpent entices humankind to sin. Not until Rev. 12:9 are we told explicitly that the serpent is Satan. In English, “Satan” is a name, whereas in the Bible this entity does not have a name. Rather, he is identified through a system of descriptive name-calling labels. In Hebrew, satan means “opponent”—in war, an enemy; in court, an accuser. The verb satan means “to be an adversary, to oppose” someone or something. Most commonly, satan refers to human enemies, and so 1 Chron. 21:1 simply refers to “an enemy” (not “Satan,” as the NIV reads) who “rose up against Israel” (cf. 1 Kings 11:14). It is only as “the satan” (Job 1–2; Zech. 3:1–2; NIV: “Satan”) that we meet the one we know from the NT as “the devil.”

The widely held myth of Satan having been an angel who rebelled is not found in the Bible. Origen (AD 185–254) was the first to allegorize Isa. 14:3–23 and Ezek. 28:1–10 in this way, and Jerome (AD 345–420) the first to translate “the Morning Star” as the name “Lucifer” (cf. Isa. 14:12; Rev. 22:16). The Bible tells us nothing of Satan’s origins.

In the OT, “evil spirit” may be a heavenly being sent by God (1 Sam. 16:14–23; 18:10; 19:9; cf. 1 Kings 22:22–23). The OT engages in extensive rebuke of the superstitions of the surrounding nations that included belief in demons (Deut. 32:17; Ps. 106:37; perhaps Isa. 13:21; cf. Rev. 18:2).

Around 200 BC, works falsely attributed to Enoch began to appear, presenting evil and mortality as essential aspects of all physical creatures. Understanding “sons of God” (Gen. 6:1–4) as angels, these books tell of angels marrying women and producing murderous giants. In response, God imprisoned the fallen angels, caused the giants to slaughter one another, and cleansed the earth with the flood. The spirits of the giants then reappear as demons having control of the Gentile nations, appearing to them as gods, worshiped as idols. The book Jubilees (c. 160 BC) introduced a leader of these demons and labeled him “Mastema” (“hatred, enmity”).

Picking up on these ideas, the Qumran literature speaks of many satans and expands the number of abusive labels used to refer to the ruler of the demons—for example, “Belial” (“worthless one”). In the same way, the LXX uses “slanderer” (diabolos) as a translation of satan. The word satan also was taken over into LXX Greek as a loanword to mean “enemy” or “adversary” (1 Kings 11:14). Both satanas and diabolos are used in the NT.

Jesus’ encounter with the devil in the wilderness recalls Adam and Eve’s encounter with the serpent in Eden. The setting, significantly, is now a wasteland. The second man to walk the earth with no sin claims the right to take back the dominion that Adam passed to the serpent. Jesus can have the whole world (without the cross) if only he will submit to the devil’s rule (Luke 4:5–7). Jesus rejects the offer. Later, he sees Satan’s fall from heaven to earth (Luke 10:18; cf. Rev. 12:5–12). Whereas once the devil had access to God’s courtroom, now his case is lost. His only recourse is murderous persecution. Between the ascension of the Son of Man (Acts 1:9) and the final judgment, this is understood to be the experience of Christ’s people (Dan. 7:25; Rev. 12:17; cf. 1 Pet. 5:8).

Whereas the OT provides sparse information about Satan and his angels/demons, the NT opens with an intensity of activity. Demons are also called “evil spirits,” and they are associated with physical illness, madness, and fortune-telling. In Acts 17:22 Paul describes his pagan Athenian listeners as “demon-fearers” (NIV: “religious”). Jesus’ miracles demonstrate his lordship over Satan’s regime as the demons flee in terror before him (Mark 1:23–26; 5:1–15). According to Paul, Christians are temples of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19), and John urges believers to “test the spirits to see whether they are from God” (1 John 4:1), assuring them that they need not fear Satan or his forces, “because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world” (1 John 4:4). On judgment day Satan will be cast into the lake of fire (Rev. 20:14–15) along with all of God’s enemies.

In Gen. 3 the serpent entices humankind to sin. Not until Rev. 12:9 are we told explicitly that the serpent is Satan. In English, “Satan” is a name, whereas in the Bible this entity does not have a name. Rather, he is identified through a system of descriptive name-calling labels. In Hebrew, satan means “opponent”—in war, an enemy; in court, an accuser. The verb satan means “to be an adversary, to oppose” someone or something. Most commonly, satan refers to human enemies, and so 1 Chron. 21:1 simply refers to “an enemy” (not “Satan,” as the NIV reads) who “rose up against Israel” (cf. 1 Kings 11:14). It is only as “the satan” (Job 1–2; Zech. 3:1–2; NIV: “Satan”) that we meet the one we know from the NT as “the devil.”

The widely held myth of Satan having been an angel who rebelled is not found in the Bible. Origen (AD 185–254) was the first to allegorize Isa. 14:3–23 and Ezek. 28:1–10 in this way, and Jerome (AD 345–420) the first to translate “the Morning Star” as the name “Lucifer” (cf. Isa. 14:12; Rev. 22:16). The Bible tells us nothing of Satan’s origins.

In the OT, “evil spirit” may be a heavenly being sent by God (1 Sam. 16:14–23; 18:10; 19:9; cf. 1 Kings 22:22–23). The OT engages in extensive rebuke of the superstitions of the surrounding nations that included belief in demons (Deut. 32:17; Ps. 106:37; perhaps Isa. 13:21; cf. Rev. 18:2).

Around 200 BC, works falsely attributed to Enoch began to appear, presenting evil and mortality as essential aspects of all physical creatures. Understanding “sons of God” (Gen. 6:1–4) as angels, these books tell of angels marrying women and producing murderous giants. In response, God imprisoned the fallen angels, caused the giants to slaughter one another, and cleansed the earth with the flood. The spirits of the giants then reappear as demons having control of the Gentile nations, appearing to them as gods, worshiped as idols. The book Jubilees (c. 160 BC) introduced a leader of these demons and labeled him “Mastema” (“hatred, enmity”).

Picking up on these ideas, the Qumran literature speaks of many satans and expands the number of abusive labels used to refer to the ruler of the demons—for example, “Belial” (“worthless one”). In the same way, the LXX uses “slanderer” (diabolos) as a translation of satan. The word satan also was taken over into LXX Greek as a loanword to mean “enemy” or “adversary” (1 Kings 11:14). Both satanas and diabolos are used in the NT.

Jesus’ encounter with the devil in the wilderness recalls Adam and Eve’s encounter with the serpent in Eden. The setting, significantly, is now a wasteland. The second man to walk the earth with no sin claims the right to take back the dominion that Adam passed to the serpent. Jesus can have the whole world (without the cross) if only he will submit to the devil’s rule (Luke 4:5–7). Jesus rejects the offer. Later, he sees Satan’s fall from heaven to earth (Luke 10:18; cf. Rev. 12:5–12). Whereas once the devil had access to God’s courtroom, now his case is lost. His only recourse is murderous persecution. Between the ascension of the Son of Man (Acts 1:9) and the final judgment, this is understood to be the experience of Christ’s people (Dan. 7:25; Rev. 12:17; cf. 1 Pet. 5:8).

Whereas the OT provides sparse information about Satan and his angels/demons, the NT opens with an intensity of activity. Demons are also called “evil spirits,” and they are associated with physical illness, madness, and fortune-telling. In Acts 17:22 Paul describes his pagan Athenian listeners as “demon-fearers” (NIV: “religious”). Jesus’ miracles demonstrate his lordship over Satan’s regime as the demons flee in terror before him (Mark 1:23–26; 5:1–15). According to Paul, Christians are temples of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19), and John urges believers to “test the spirits to see whether they are from God” (1 John 4:1), assuring them that they need not fear Satan or his forces, “because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world” (1 John 4:4). On judgment day Satan will be cast into the lake of fire (Rev. 20:14–15) along with all of God’s enemies.

For Christians, God is the creator of the cosmos and the redeemer of humanity. He has revealed himself in historical acts—namely, in creation, in the history of Israel, and especially in the person and work of Jesus Christ. There is only one God (Deut. 6:4); “there is no other” (Isa. 45:5). Because “God is spirit” (John 4:24), he must reveal himself through various images and metaphors.

Imagery of God

God’s character and attributes are revealed primarily through the use of imagery, the best and most understandable way to describe the mysterious nature of God. Scripture employs many images to describe God’s being and character. Some examples follow here.

God is compared to the father who shows compassion and love to his children (Ps. 103:13; Rom. 8:15). The father image is also used by the prophets to reveal God’s creatorship (Isa. 64:8). Jesus predominantly uses the language of “Father” in reference to God (Mark 8:38; 13:32; 14:36), revealing his close relationship with the Father. God is also identified as the king of Israel even before the Israelites have a human king (1 Sam. 10:19).

The Psalter exalts Yahweh as the king, acknowledging God’s sovereignty and preeminence (Pss. 5:2; 44:4; 47:6–7; 68:24; 74:12; 84:3; 95:3; 145:1). God is metaphorically identified as the shepherd who takes care of his sheep, his people, to depict his nature of provision and protection (Ps. 23:1–4). The image of the potter is also employed to describe the nature of God, who creates his creatures according to his will (Jer. 18:6; Rom. 9:20–23). In Hos. 2:4–3:5 God is identified as the long-suffering husband of the adulterous wife Israel. In the setting of war, God is depicted as the divine warrior who fights against his enemy (Exod. 15:3).

God is also referred to as advocate (Isa. 1:18), judge (Gen. 18:25), and lawgiver (Deut. 5:1–22). The image of the farmer is also frequently adopted to describe God’s nature of compassionate care, creation, providence, justice, redemption, sanctification, and more (e.g., Isa. 5:1–7; John 15:1–12). God is often referred to as the teacher (Exod. 4:15) who teaches what to do, as does the Holy Spirit in the NT (John 14:26). The Holy Spirit is identified as the counselor, the helper, the witness, and the guide (John 14:16, 26; 15:26). God is often metaphorically compared to various things in nature, such as rock (Ps. 18:2, 31, 46), light (Ps. 27:1), fire (Deut. 4:24; 9:3), lion (Hos. 11:10), and eagle (Deut. 32:11–12). In particular, the Davidic psalms employ many images in nature—rock, fortress, shield, horn, and stronghold (e.g., Ps. 18:2)—to describe God’s perfect protection.

Last, anthropomorphism often is employed to describe God’s activities. Numerous parts of the human body are used to speak of God: face (Num. 6:25–26), eyes (2 Chron. 16:9), mouth (Deut. 8:3), ears (Neh. 1:6), nostrils (Exod. 15:8), hands (Ezra 7:9), arms (Deut. 33:27), fingers (Ps. 8:3), voice (Exod. 15:26), shoulders (Deut. 33:12), feet (Ps. 18:9), and back (Exod. 33:21–22).

Names and Attributes of God

The OT refers to God by many names. One of the general terms used for God, ’el (which probably means “ultimate supremacy”), often appears in a compound form with a qualifying word, as in ’el ’elyon (“God Most High”), ’el shadday (“God Almighty”), and ’el ro’i (“the God who sees me” or “God of my seeing”). These descriptive names reveal important attributes of God and usually were derived from the personal experiences of the people of God in real-life settings; thus, they do not describe an abstract concept of God.

The most prominent personal name of God is yahweh (YHWH), which is translated as “the Lord” in most English Bibles. At the burning bush in the wilderness of Horeb, God first revealed to Moses his personal name in sentence form: “I am who I am” (Exod. 3:13–15). Though debated, the divine name “YHWH” seems to originate from an abbreviated form of this sentence. Yahweh, who was with Moses and his people at the time of exodus, is the God who was with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. According to Jesus’ testimony, “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” is identified as the God “of the living” (Matt. 22:32). Hence, the name “Yahweh” is closely tied to God’s self-revelation as the God of presence and life. (See also Names of God.)

Many of God’s attributes are summarized in Exod. 34:6–7: “The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.” Below are further explanations of some of the representative attributes of God.

Holiness. The moral excellence of God is the attribute that underlies all other attributes. Thus, all God’s attributes can be modified by the adjective holy: holy love, holy justice, holy mercy, holy righteousness, holy compassion, holy wisdom, and so forth. God is the only supremely holy one (1 Sam. 2:2; Rev. 15:4). God’s name is also holy; those who profane God’s name are condemned as guilty (Exod. 20:7; Lev. 22:32). God is depicted as the one who has concern for his holy name, which the Israelites profaned among the nations; God actively seeks to restore the holiness of his defiled name (Ezek. 36:21–23). God’s holiness is revealed by his righteous action (Isa. 5:16). Not only is God holy, but also he expects his people to be holy (Lev. 11:45; 19:2). All the sacrificial codes of Leviticus represent the moral requirements of holiness for the worshipers. Because of God’s character of holiness, he cannot tolerate sin in the lives of people, and he brings judgment to those who do not repent (Hab. 1:13).

Love and justice. Because “God is love,” no one reaches the true knowledge of God without having love (1 John 4:8). Images of the father and the faithful husband are frequently employed to portray God’s love (Deut. 1:31; Jer. 31:32; Hos. 2:14–20; 11:1–4). God’s love was supremely demonstrated by the giving of his only Son Jesus Christ for his people (John 3:16; Rom. 5:7–8; 1 John 4:9–10). God expects his people to follow the model of Christ’s sacrificial love (1 John 3:16).

God’s justice is the foundation of his moral law and his ways (Deut. 32:4; Job 34:12; Ps. 9:16; Rev. 15:3). It is also seen in his will (Ps. 99:4). God loves justice and acts with justice (Ps. 33:5). God’s justice is demonstrated in judging people according to their deeds—punishing wickedness and rewarding righteousness (Ezek. 18:20; Ps. 58:11; Rev. 20:12–13). God establishes justice by upholding the cause of the oppressed (Ps. 103:6) and by vindicating those afflicted (1 Sam. 25:39). God is completely impartial in implementing justice (Job 34:18–19). As with holiness, God requires his people to reflect his justice (Prov. 21:3).

God keeps a perfect balance between the attributes of love and justice. God’s love never infringes upon his justice, and vice versa. The cross of Jesus Christ perfectly shows these two attributes in one act. Because of his love, God gave his only Son for his people; because of his justice, God punished his Son for the sake of their sins. The good news is that God’s justice was satisfied by the work of Jesus Christ (Rom. 3:25–26).

Righteousness and mercy. God’s righteousness shows his unique moral perfection. God’s nature, actions, and laws display his character of righteousness (Pss. 19:8–9; 119:137; Dan. 9:14). “Righteousness and justice” are the foundation of God’s throne (Ps. 89:14). God’s righteousness was especially demonstrated in the work of Jesus Christ (Rom. 3:21–22). God’s righteousness will ultimately be revealed in his final judgment (Rev. 19:2; 20–22; cf. Ps. 7:11).

The English word “mercy” renders various words in the original languages: in Hebrew, khesed, khanan, rakham; in Greek, charis, eleos, oiktirmos, splanchnon. English Bibles translate these variously as “mercy,” “compassion,” “grace,” “kindness,” or “love.” The word “mercy” is chosen here as a representative concept (cf. Ps. 86:15). God’s mercy is most clearly seen in his act of forgiving sinners. In the Psalter, “Have mercy on me” is the most common form of expression when the psalmist entreats God’s forgiveness (Pss. 41:4, 10; 51:1). God’s mercy is shown abundantly to his chosen people (Eph. 2:4–8). Because of his mercy, their sins are forgiven (Mic. 7:18), their punishments are withheld (Ezra 9:13), and even sinners’ prayers are heard (Ps. 51:1; Luke 18:13–14). God is “the Father of mercies” (2 Cor. 1:3 NRSV).

God keeps a perfect balance between righteousness and mercy. His righteousness and mercy never infringe upon each other, nor does one operate at the expense of the other. God’s abundant mercy is shown to sinners through Jesus Christ, but if they do not repent of their sins, his righteous judgment will be brought upon them.

Faithfulness. God’s faithfulness is revealed in keeping the covenant that he made with his people. God “is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments” (Deut. 7:9). God is faithful to his character, his name, and his word (Neh. 9:8; Ps. 106:8; 2 Tim. 2:13; Heb. 6:13–18). God’s faithfulness is clearly seen in fulfilling his promise (Josh. 23:14). God showed his faithfulness by fulfilling all the promises that he made to Abraham (Gen. 12:2–3; Rom. 9:9; Gal. 4:28; Heb. 6:13–15), by having Solomon build the temple that he promised to David (2 Sam. 7:12–13; 1 Kings 8:17–21), and by sending his people into exile in Babylon and returning them to their homeland (Jer. 25:8–11; Dan. 9:2–3). God’s faithfulness was ultimately demonstrated by sending Jesus Christ, as was promised in the OT (Luke 24:44; Acts 13:32–33; 1 Cor. 15:3–8).

Goodness. Jesus said, “No one is good—except God alone” (Mark 10:18). God demonstrates his goodness in his actions (Ps. 119:68), in his work of creation (1 Tim. 4:4), in his love (Ps. 86:5), and in his promises (Josh. 23:14–15).

Patience. God is “slow to anger” (Exod. 34:6; Num. 14:18), which is a favorite expression for his patience (Neh. 9:17; Pss. 86:15; 103:8; Joel 2:13). God is patient with sinful people for a long time (Acts 13:18). Because of his patient character, he delays punishment (Isa. 42:14). For instance, God was patient with his disobedient prophet Jonah and also with the sinful people of Nineveh (Jon. 3:1–10). The purpose of God’s patience is to lead people toward repentance (Rom. 2:4).

God of the Trinity

The Christian God of the Bible is the triune God. God is one but exists in three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19). The Son is one with the Father (John 10:30); the Holy Spirit is one with God (2 Sam. 23:2–3). All three share the same divine nature; they are all-knowing, holy, glorious, and called “Lord” and “God” (Matt. 11:25; John 1:1; 20:28; Acts 3:22; 5:3–4; 10:36; 1 Cor. 8:6; 2 Cor. 3:17–18; 2 Pet. 1:1). All three share in the same work of creation (Gen. 1:1–3), salvation (1 Pet. 1:2), indwelling (John 14:23), and directing the church’s mission (Matt. 28:18–20; Acts 16:6–10; 14:27; 13:2–4).

God’s “repenting” (KJV) or “relenting” (NIV) may seem to be in tension with his sovereignty, but it makes sense on several assumptions. God wills to accomplish certain overall ends, but he retains freedom to modify the path that he takes to achieve them, as needed. This in turn assumes that God’s interaction with humanity involves genuine give-and-take. Therefore, God’s way in history may be recounted as a story with surprise twists and turns that are integral to the plot. We may affirm all this and also uphold divine sovereignty if we understand both human prayer and God’s response as divinely ordained means for God to achieve his purposes.

Texts that speak of God relenting indicate that God is adopting a new course of action, a change of mind. In a sense, divine judgment itself represents a kind of “change of mind” from God’s basic, original intent to bless. Whereas judgment is “his strange work . . . his alien task” (Isa. 28:21), undertaken when necessary, God’s character is to be gracious and compassionate, to relent from sending calamity (Isa. 48:9; Joel 2:13), and to bring restoration after judgment (Gen. 9:11; Isa. 54:7–8; Hos. 2).

Terminology. To portray God relenting, the OT often uses the Hebrew word nakham, which carries a strong emotional content and an element of regret. On certain occasions, it refers to profound grief that God feels in reaction to human sin and calamity (Gen. 6:6–7; Judg. 2:18; 1 Sam. 15:35; 2 Sam. 24:16). This is not to suggest that God is making amends for wrongs or has the same kinds of regret for mistakes that humans have. But we should recognize that when nakham is used to speak of God “relenting,” it means something more than a change in the direction of the wind: it involves the heart of God, engaged deeply with his people’s welfare (cf. Hos. 11:8–9). Conversely, the human cry for God to relent is wrung from experiences of deep crisis (Job 6:29; Pss. 90:13; 106:44–45).

Exodus and Jonah. Two classic OT narratives about divine relenting may be contrasted. In Exod. 32 the Israelites’ idolatry with the golden calf is followed by God’s indictment and intention to destroy them. A dramatic turning point comes with Moses’ intercession, in response to which God relents. The book of Jonah turns this sequence on its head. Here the prophet resists his mission of announcing Nineveh’s doom because he fears that its people may repent, which they do (Jon. 3:5–9), and that God may then relent from bringing on them the judgment that he had sent Jonah to announce, which he does (4:2). The book of Jonah portrays the prophet as an antihero, out of step with the compassion and larger purposes of God, unhappy with the freedom of God. But it preserves the link between human repentance for sin and divine relenting from previously announced judgment, as seen in Exod. 32.

The prophets. Through the OT prophets, God wrestles with Israel, announcing one course of action, judgment, while often holding open the possibility of an alternate ending: if Israel repents (Jer. 18:8; 26:3, 13) or if a prophet (Amos 7:1–6) or a king (Jer. 26:19) intercedes, then God may relent. At the end of the day, relenting remains a move that God chooses to make or not to make (Isa. 57:6; Jer. 7:16–20; Ezek. 24:14), in faithfulness to his own purpose (Ps. 7:10–12; Jer. 23:20; 30:24; Zech. 8:14–15).

In the book of Amos, God does both. Amos 1–2 comprises a cycle of seven judgment speeches against Israel’s neighbors, culminating in the eighth, lengthiest judgment speech against Israel. Each speech opens with the formula “For three sins of X, and for four, I will not turn back [my wrath].” Here God declares that he has committed himself to carrying out judgment. With the use of the verb shub (“to turn, turn back”), any implied question of reprieve is answered immediately: the nation’s condemnation is irrevocable. But in 7:1–6 God is twice said to “relent” (nakham) from sending the locusts and fire that he has just shown Amos in visions. Granting stays from specific forms of punishment is not the same as forgiving Israel’s sin, however, and these temporary measures are followed by a reassertion of God’s determination to spare Israel no longer (7:7–9). Moreover, even though Israel’s doom is sealed, Amos can still urge his hearers to repent and turn to God, on the grounds that God may relent—that is, freely respond with mercy and allow some to survive the nation’s fall (5:4–6, 14–15).

Salvation and judgment. This divine freedom, compassion, and judgment that dovetail in OT accounts of God relenting are embodied in Jesus’ announcement of the kingdom, which signals both salvation and its corollary, judgment. Hence come his summons to “Repent and believe the good news” (Mark 1:15) and the apostolic call for hearers to escape their generation’s doom by repentance and faith in Jesus (Acts 2:40).

(1) The second of Noah’s three sons, his descendants included Cush, Mizraim (Egypt), Put, and Canaan. After Ham informed his brothers that he saw their naked father, Noah cursed Ham’s son Canaan, who was possibly involved. The name can designate one branch of Ham’s descendants, the Egyptians, or their land (Pss. 78:51; 105:23, 27; 106:22). (2) A city inhabited by the Zuzites that was attacked by Kedorlaomer during the time of Abraham (Gen. 14:5).

An alternate name for the desert range and mountain called “Sinai” (Exod. 3:1; 17:6; 33:6; Deut. 1:2, 6, 19; 4:10, 15; 5:2; 9:8; 18:16; 29:1; 1 Kings 8:9; 19:8; 2 Chron. 5:10; Ps. 106:19; Mal. 4:4).

An image or likeness of a deity, whether carved from wood, molded from metal, or even formed in one’s mind. Although idols are not strictly equivalent to the gods they represent—even pagans recognized that idols are only the physical medium through which a spirit reveals itself—the Bible does not distinguish between worshiping idols, worshiping other gods, or worshiping Yahweh through images.

In contrast to other ancient religions, the Bible rejects worship of all images as incompatible with worship of God. This includes images of Yahweh, since he is transcendent and cannot be represented by anything in creation. As Moses reminded Israel, they saw no form at Sinai but only heard God’s voice (Deut. 4:12). No form can adequately represent Yahweh, as he is incomparable. The Bible similarly forbids worshiping images of other deities because it elevates them to the status reserved for God alone. Thus, the second commandment prohibits making and worshiping idols in the image of anything found in heaven, on earth, or in the water (Exod. 20:4–5).

Idolatry is regularly likened to spiritual adultery or prostitution because it marks a breakdown of God’s covenant relationship with his people (Deut. 31:16; Ps. 106:36–39; Hos. 4:12–19). This corresponds to the fact that idol worship often included cultic prostitution and fertility rites. Prophets and psalmists alike ridiculed idols as things fashioned by human hands that were unable to see, hear, or otherwise help those who made them. Rather, these “gods” depended on humans for transportation and protection (Ps. 115:4–8; Isa. 40:19–20; 44:9–20). Idolaters were warned that they would become as worthless as the things they worshiped. While declaring that idols amount to nothing, both Testaments nevertheless consider them spiritually dangerous. This is because idols lead people away from properly worshiping Yahweh and expose them to demonic influences.

Despite its warnings against idolatry, the Bible records that Israel regularly failed to keep itself pure. Right after God’s supreme revelation at Sinai, Aaron led the nation in making and worshiping a golden calf (Exod. 32). The book of Judges shows how society had become degraded to the point that a man, Micah, and a tribe, Dan, engaged in idol worship (Judg. 17–18). When the monarchy was divided after Solomon’s rule, Jeroboam revived calf worship to preserve the loyalty of his people (1 Kings 12:25–33). Both historical and prophetic books cite idolatry as a major reason for the exile.

By NT times, idol worship was no longer a problem for Jews, but it remained an important issue for the growing church because many believers came from idolatrous backgrounds. Thus, the apostles included idolatry in lists of sins to be judged, warned their readers to flee from it, and addressed eating food sacrificed to idols. Indicating that idolatry went beyond worship of images, they linked it with the love of money (Matt. 6:24) and greed (Col. 3:5). The NT authors believed that their readers could turn from idols to worship the true and living God, praised them for doing so, and looked to the time when all idol worship would cease.

An image or likeness of a deity, whether carved from wood, molded from metal, or even formed in one’s mind. Although idols are not strictly equivalent to the gods they represent—even pagans recognized that idols are only the physical medium through which a spirit reveals itself—the Bible does not distinguish between worshiping idols, worshiping other gods, or worshiping Yahweh through images.

In contrast to other ancient religions, the Bible rejects worship of all images as incompatible with worship of God. This includes images of Yahweh, since he is transcendent and cannot be represented by anything in creation. As Moses reminded Israel, they saw no form at Sinai but only heard God’s voice (Deut. 4:12). No form can adequately represent Yahweh, as he is incomparable. The Bible similarly forbids worshiping images of other deities because it elevates them to the status reserved for God alone. Thus, the second commandment prohibits making and worshiping idols in the image of anything found in heaven, on earth, or in the water (Exod. 20:4–5).

Idolatry is regularly likened to spiritual adultery or prostitution because it marks a breakdown of God’s covenant relationship with his people (Deut. 31:16; Ps. 106:36–39; Hos. 4:12–19). This corresponds to the fact that idol worship often included cultic prostitution and fertility rites. Prophets and psalmists alike ridiculed idols as things fashioned by human hands that were unable to see, hear, or otherwise help those who made them. Rather, these “gods” depended on humans for transportation and protection (Ps. 115:4–8; Isa. 40:19–20; 44:9–20). Idolaters were warned that they would become as worthless as the things they worshiped. While declaring that idols amount to nothing, both Testaments nevertheless consider them spiritually dangerous. This is because idols lead people away from properly worshiping Yahweh and expose them to demonic influences.

Despite its warnings against idolatry, the Bible records that Israel regularly failed to keep itself pure. Right after God’s supreme revelation at Sinai, Aaron led the nation in making and worshiping a golden calf (Exod. 32). The book of Judges shows how society had become degraded to the point that a man, Micah, and a tribe, Dan, engaged in idol worship (Judg. 17–18). When the monarchy was divided after Solomon’s rule, Jeroboam revived calf worship to preserve the loyalty of his people (1 Kings 12:25–33). Both historical and prophetic books cite idolatry as a major reason for the exile.

By NT times, idol worship was no longer a problem for Jews, but it remained an important issue for the growing church because many believers came from idolatrous backgrounds. Thus, the apostles included idolatry in lists of sins to be judged, warned their readers to flee from it, and addressed eating food sacrificed to idols. Indicating that idolatry went beyond worship of images, they linked it with the love of money (Matt. 6:24) and greed (Col. 3:5). The NT authors believed that their readers could turn from idols to worship the true and living God, praised them for doing so, and looked to the time when all idol worship would cease.

An image or likeness of a deity, whether carved from wood, molded from metal, or even formed in one’s mind. Although idols are not strictly equivalent to the gods they represent—even pagans recognized that idols are only the physical medium through which a spirit reveals itself—the Bible does not distinguish between worshiping idols, worshiping other gods, or worshiping Yahweh through images.

In contrast to other ancient religions, the Bible rejects worship of all images as incompatible with worship of God. This includes images of Yahweh, since he is transcendent and cannot be represented by anything in creation. As Moses reminded Israel, they saw no form at Sinai but only heard God’s voice (Deut. 4:12). No form can adequately represent Yahweh, as he is incomparable. The Bible similarly forbids worshiping images of other deities because it elevates them to the status reserved for God alone. Thus, the second commandment prohibits making and worshiping idols in the image of anything found in heaven, on earth, or in the water (Exod. 20:4–5).

Idolatry is regularly likened to spiritual adultery or prostitution because it marks a breakdown of God’s covenant relationship with his people (Deut. 31:16; Ps. 106:36–39; Hos. 4:12–19). This corresponds to the fact that idol worship often included cultic prostitution and fertility rites. Prophets and psalmists alike ridiculed idols as things fashioned by human hands that were unable to see, hear, or otherwise help those who made them. Rather, these “gods” depended on humans for transportation and protection (Ps. 115:4–8; Isa. 40:19–20; 44:9–20). Idolaters were warned that they would become as worthless as the things they worshiped. While declaring that idols amount to nothing, both Testaments nevertheless consider them spiritually dangerous. This is because idols lead people away from properly worshiping Yahweh and expose them to demonic influences.

Despite its warnings against idolatry, the Bible records that Israel regularly failed to keep itself pure. Right after God’s supreme revelation at Sinai, Aaron led the nation in making and worshiping a golden calf (Exod. 32). The book of Judges shows how society had become degraded to the point that a man, Micah, and a tribe, Dan, engaged in idol worship (Judg. 17–18). When the monarchy was divided after Solomon’s rule, Jeroboam revived calf worship to preserve the loyalty of his people (1 Kings 12:25–33). Both historical and prophetic books cite idolatry as a major reason for the exile.

By NT times, idol worship was no longer a problem for Jews, but it remained an important issue for the growing church because many believers came from idolatrous backgrounds. Thus, the apostles included idolatry in lists of sins to be judged, warned their readers to flee from it, and addressed eating food sacrificed to idols. Indicating that idolatry went beyond worship of images, they linked it with the love of money (Matt. 6:24) and greed (Col. 3:5). The NT authors believed that their readers could turn from idols to worship the true and living God, praised them for doing so, and looked to the time when all idol worship would cease.

Freedom from sin, guilt, impurity, blame, guile, or harm. This broad semantic range includes several Hebrew and Greek words. In the OT, one root, tsdq, which suggests “righteousness,” is used in a forensic sense (e.g., Gen. 44:16; Job 9:15), and another, nqh, which means “free from, clean,” appears in cultic contexts (e.g., Pss. 19:13; 26:6). However, because God is the ultimate judge, these spheres often overlap (e.g., 1 Kings 8:32; Jer. 2:35). Other words suggest a lack of guile (2 Sam. 15:11) or of impurity (Prov. 16:2; 21:8). The common phrase “innocent blood” (e.g., Deut. 19:10; Ps. 106:38) indicates that a victim of murder is undeserving of this fate. God warns Israel not to shed innocent blood (Deut. 27:25; Jer. 22:3). Innocence and guilt are calculated in the ultimate sense before God, who is “the Judge of all the earth” (Gen. 18:25). This is why the psalmist desires to be forgiven or declared innocent of hidden faults and kept from committing willful sins (Ps. 19:12–13).

In the NT, references to innocence are relatively rare, yet the range of meanings spans the forensic (Matt. 27:19) to the cultic (Matt. 12:5, 7), including the connotations of a lack of guile (Matt. 10:16; Rom. 16:19) or of impurity (Acts 20:26). The phrase “innocent blood” reappears, now applied to Jesus (Matt. 27:4; cf. 27:24), and the joining of the forensic and the cultic meanings of innocence in God’s judgment is explicitly stated (1 Cor. 4:4).

In Jesus’ trial and death, his innocence is clearly shown even though he is condemned as guilty. Judas acknowledges that he has betrayed innocent blood (Matt. 27:4), Pilate announces that he finds no basis for a charge against Jesus (John 19:4), and a centurion declares that Jesus is “righteous” (NIV) or “innocent” (NASB) (Luke 23:47, translating dikaios). God now “justifies the wicked” by faith in Jesus (Rom. 4:5).

Meribah (“quarreling”) is another name for Massah (“testing”), a location on the journey toward Mount Horeb (Sinai) where the Israelites grumbled against God because they had no water; Moses struck the rock at Horeb, and water flowed out (Exod. 17:7). Subsequent references to Meribah concern a similar incident in Kadesh after the Israelites had journeyed on from Horeb (Num. 20:13, 24; 27:14; Deut. 32:51; 33:8; Pss. 81:7; 95:8; 106:32). On this occasion Moses and Aaron, in getting water out of the rock, failed to honor God as holy, and for this they were denied entrance into Canaan. See also Massah; Meribah Kadesh.

Since the earliest stages of Israel’s national history, the Israelites were a mixed people (cf. Exod. 12:37–38). Although intermarriage with non-Israelites was not strictly forbidden, it came with the condition that the non-Israelite spouse embrace Israel’s God (cf. Ruth 1:16; Ezra 6:21). This stipulation was not always obeyed (Num. 11:4), and occasionally drastic measures were employed to correct Israel’s mixed ethnic status (cf. Ezra 9:2; Neh. 13:3; Ps. 106:35). See also Mixed Multitude.

A mountain in Moab, in the area of Mount Nebo. This location is derived from Num. 24:2, which mentions that the view from Peor affords a glimpse of the plains of Moab. No precise location has been identified. In Num. 23 Peor is the site of Balaam’s pronouncements of blessing upon Israel, inspired by God. Elsewhere (Num. 23:3, 5, 18; Ps. 106:28), Peor is associated with apostasy and illicit religious practice (the worship of Baal of Peor).

Oral, ceremonial, or physical defilement, desecration, corruption, contamination; to make morally, ceremonially, or physically unclean or impure; to make filthy (Num. 35:33; 2 Chron. 36:14; Ezra 2:62; Neh. 7:64; Ps. 106:38; Prov. 25:26; Isa. 24:5; Jer. 3:1, 2, 9; 16:18; Ezek. 23:30; Zeph. 3:1, 4; Mal. 1:7, 12; Acts 15:20; 2 Pet. 2:10, 20). The choice of “pollution/pollute” rather than a synonym is a translation decision. The word occurs many other places in certain versions.

Pollution in modern secular usage generally refers to the dirtying of environmental spaces as a result of human activity, for example, air and water pollution. Proverbs 25:26 employs this understanding. More generally, the stewardship mandate given to humanity by God in Gen. 2:15 provides biblical support for the importance of caring for the environment. This would include reducing or eliminating known polluting activities and cleaning up previously polluted spaces. See also Clean, Cleanness.

God’s “repenting” (KJV) or “relenting” (NIV) may seem to be in tension with his sovereignty, but it makes sense on several assumptions. God wills to accomplish certain overall ends, but he retains freedom to modify the path that he takes to achieve them, as needed. This in turn assumes that God’s interaction with humanity involves genuine give-and-take. Therefore, God’s way in history may be recounted as a story with surprise twists and turns that are integral to the plot. We may affirm all this and also uphold divine sovereignty if we understand both human prayer and God’s response as divinely ordained means for God to achieve his purposes.

Texts that speak of God relenting indicate that God is adopting a new course of action, a change of mind. In a sense, divine judgment itself represents a kind of “change of mind” from God’s basic, original intent to bless. Whereas judgment is “his strange work . . . his alien task” (Isa. 28:21), undertaken when necessary, God’s character is to be gracious and compassionate, to relent from sending calamity (Isa. 48:9; Joel 2:13), and to bring restoration after judgment (Gen. 9:11; Isa. 54:7–8; Hos. 2).

Terminology. To portray God relenting, the OT often uses the Hebrew word nakham, which carries a strong emotional content and an element of regret. On certain occasions, it refers to profound grief that God feels in reaction to human sin and calamity (Gen. 6:6–7; Judg. 2:18; 1 Sam. 15:35; 2 Sam. 24:16). This is not to suggest that God is making amends for wrongs or has the same kinds of regret for mistakes that humans have. But we should recognize that when nakham is used to speak of God “relenting,” it means something more than a change in the direction of the wind: it involves the heart of God, engaged deeply with his people’s welfare (cf. Hos. 11:8–9). Conversely, the human cry for God to relent is wrung from experiences of deep crisis (Job 6:29; Pss. 90:13; 106:44–45).

Exodus and Jonah. Two classic OT narratives about divine relenting may be contrasted. In Exod. 32 the Israelites’ idolatry with the golden calf is followed by God’s indictment and intention to destroy them. A dramatic turning point comes with Moses’ intercession, in response to which God relents. The book of Jonah turns this sequence on its head. Here the prophet resists his mission of announcing Nineveh’s doom because he fears that its people may repent, which they do (Jon. 3:5–9), and that God may then relent from bringing on them the judgment that he had sent Jonah to announce, which he does (4:2). The book of Jonah portrays the prophet as an antihero, out of step with the compassion and larger purposes of God, unhappy with the freedom of God. But it preserves the link between human repentance for sin and divine relenting from previously announced judgment, as seen in Exod. 32.

The prophets. Through the OT prophets, God wrestles with Israel, announcing one course of action, judgment, while often holding open the possibility of an alternate ending: if Israel repents (Jer. 18:8; 26:3, 13) or if a prophet (Amos 7:1–6) or a king (Jer. 26:19) intercedes, then God may relent. At the end of the day, relenting remains a move that God chooses to make or not to make (Isa. 57:6; Jer. 7:16–20; Ezek. 24:14), in faithfulness to his own purpose (Ps. 7:10–12; Jer. 23:20; 30:24; Zech. 8:14–15).

In the book of Amos, God does both. Amos 1–2 comprises a cycle of seven judgment speeches against Israel’s neighbors, culminating in the eighth, lengthiest judgment speech against Israel. Each speech opens with the formula “For three sins of X, and for four, I will not turn back [my wrath].” Here God declares that he has committed himself to carrying out judgment. With the use of the verb shub (“to turn, turn back”), any implied question of reprieve is answered immediately: the nation’s condemnation is irrevocable. But in 7:1–6 God is twice said to “relent” (nakham) from sending the locusts and fire that he has just shown Amos in visions. Granting stays from specific forms of punishment is not the same as forgiving Israel’s sin, however, and these temporary measures are followed by a reassertion of God’s determination to spare Israel no longer (7:7–9). Moreover, even though Israel’s doom is sealed, Amos can still urge his hearers to repent and turn to God, on the grounds that God may relent—that is, freely respond with mercy and allow some to survive the nation’s fall (5:4–6, 14–15).

Salvation and judgment. This divine freedom, compassion, and judgment that dovetail in OT accounts of God relenting are embodied in Jesus’ announcement of the kingdom, which signals both salvation and its corollary, judgment. Hence come his summons to “Repent and believe the good news” (Mark 1:15) and the apostolic call for hearers to escape their generation’s doom by repentance and faith in Jesus (Acts 2:40).

There are two definitions for “similitude,” both of which are archaic and rarely used but are found in the KJV. The first refers to a literary device that compares objects emphasizing their similarities (see Hos. 12:10 KJV). The second use of the word, much more common in the KJV, is simply a reference to the similarity between two people or objects. An example of this use is found in Ps. 106:20.

A device used to trap small birds and animals (Prov. 6:5; 7:23; Eccles. 9:12; Ezek. 12:13; 17:20; Amos 3:5). “To ensnare” means to catch or trap by secretive or deceitful means. Israel is frequently warned that foreign gods and idols will be snares to it, thus distracting it from undivided worship of Yahweh (Exod. 23:33; 34:12; Deut. 7:16; Judg. 2:3; 8:27; Ps. 106:36). A snare is a common image in Scripture implying anything of ill purpose or unwise practice (Exod. 10:7; 1 Sam. 18:21; Job 18:9; Pss. 25:15; 69:22; 91:3; 119:110; 124:7; 140:5; 142:3; Prov. 18:7; 21:6; 29:25; Eccles. 7:26; Isa. 8:14; 24:17–18; Jer. 5:26; 48:43–44; Hos. 5:1; Rom. 11:9).

Despite tendencies to downplay the reality of God’s anger (God is classically described as “without passions”), if we are to do justice to both Testaments, we must allow the language of Scripture to stand, where God often is said to be angry with individuals or nations, including Israel. Although God is changeless (Mal. 3:6), he interacts in a personal way with a time-bound world. The Bible writers intend us to understand that there is something in God’s anger to which human anger is analogous, though God’s anger is not identical to ours (Hos. 11:9). God’s anger is not an automatic response; he can restrain it (Ps. 78:38). God is said to be characteristically slow to become angry; that is, his anger is a deliberate response (Exod. 34:6, a text with numerous echoes) and may also be short-lived (Ps. 30:5; Mic. 7:18).

God’s anger against Israel in the wilderness is noteworthy (Heb. 3:10, 17). The apostasy with the golden calf (Exod. 32:10–12), the complaining (Num. 11:1, 33), and the failure to enter the promised land following the report of the spies (Num. 32:10–11) all provoke God to anger. Failure to heed God’s word (Zech. 7:12) or that of his prophets (2 Chron. 36:16), neglect of his worship (2 Chron. 29:6–8), and intermarriage with idolaters (Ezra 9:14) are behaviors that incur the wrath of God.

God’s anger is directed against individuals, particularly for failures of leadership, as with Moses (Exod. 4:14; Deut. 1:37) and Solomon (1 Kings 11:9–11). God’s anger often is directed against the Israelite and Judean kings, not just those who committed idolatry (2 Chron. 25:15), but even those who are faithful in most respects, for their failure to remove the idolatrous high places (2 Kings 23:19).

Picking up on the warning that God’s anger will be directed against those who do not pay homage to God’s appointed king (Ps. 2:5, 12), Jesus declares that disobedience to God’s Son brings upon one the wrath of God (John 3:36), which evidently is not incompatible with his love for the world (3:16). According to Rom. 4:15, God’s wrath is a consequence of the law; that is, the law, giving concrete expression to the character of God, brings culpability for transgression. God’s wrath is revealed against all forms of ungodliness and its tendency to suppress the truth (Rom. 1:18). Those who demonstrate their disobedience to God or his truth will be subjected to his anger (Rom. 2:8; Eph. 5:6; Col. 3:6).

A pervasive metaphor for anger is that of a burning fire (Deut. 32:22; Ps. 89:46; Isa. 66:15) along with associated images of smoke (Ps. 18:8) and smelting metal (Ezek. 22:20, 22). Other images are the winepress (Isa. 63:3; Rev. 14:19), drinking from a vessel (Isa. 51:22; Rev. 14:10), and a tempest (Ezek. 13:13).

The judgment that follows as a consequence of God’s anger being aroused takes the form of the withholding of God’s covenant favor (Ps. 95:11; Isa. 54:8) or the implementation of his covenant curses (Deut. 29:27), specifically through drought (Deut. 11:17), plague (Ps. 78:50), the sword (Ps. 78:62), and deliverance into the hands of enemies (2 Kings 13:3), leading to exile (2 Chron. 6:36). God’s anger can be depicted in various forms of cosmic upheaval or the undoing of creation (2 Sam. 22:8–16; Ps. 18:7; Jer. 4:26). God’s anger is beyond human ability to endure (Ps. 76:7), such that hiding in Sheol is considered preferable (Job 14:13).

God’s wrath becomes particularly associated with a coming day of wrath at the end of the age, when God’s justice will be powerfully displayed (Dan. 8:19; Zeph. 2:3; Luke 21:23; Rom. 2:5; Rev. 6:17).

Subjection to God’s anger may evoke the cry “How long?” (Pss. 79:5; 80:4). While God’s mercy cannot be taken for granted, since his anger against some may be final as an expression of his justice (Jer. 30:24; Rom. 12:19), God’s anger may be assuaged or averted through humbling oneself (2 Chron. 12:7) and an appeal to God for mercy (Ps. 106:23; Hab. 3:2), by repentance (2 Chron. 29:10; Ezra 10:14; Jon. 3:9), by zealous action to root out evil (Num. 25:11), and by the faithful ministry of God’s appointed servants (Num. 1:53; 18:5).

The NT brings to fulfillment these forms of mediation in presenting the ultimate remedy for God’s wrath in the person and work of Jesus Christ (Rom. 5:9; 1 Thess. 1:10; 5:9). The use of “propitiation” language (Rom. 3:25; Heb. 2:17; 1 John 2:2), though its significance is disputed, is classically understood in terms of the need for God’s wrath to be satisfied. In that case, it is specifically the cross of Christ that ultimately deals with God’s righteous anger against sinners.

A collection of 150 poems. They are the hymnbook of the OT period, used in public worship. Psalms contains songs of different lengths, types, and dates. The earliest psalm (Ps. 90) is attributed to Moses (mid-second millennium BC), while the content of Ps. 126 and Ps. 137 points to the latest periods of the OT (mid-first millennium BC). They continue to be used as a source of public worship and private devotion.

Historical Background

Most psalms have a title. In the Hebrew text this title comprises the first verse, whereas English translations set it off before the first verse. Titles vary. Many name an author (e.g., David [Ps. 3]; Asaph [Ps. 77]; sons of Korah [Ps. 42]), while others provide information about genre (e.g., Psalms of Ascent [Pss. 120–134]), tune (e.g., “Do Not Destroy” [Ps. 75]), use in worship (Ps. 92), and a circumstance that led to composition (Ps. 51). Information in the title gives hints concerning how psalms were written and brought into a final collection.

Composition

As mentioned, the titles of the psalms often give indications of authorship and occasionally name the circumstance that led to the writing of the psalm. A good example is Ps. 51, where the title states, “For the director of music. A psalm of David. When the prophet Nathan came to him after David had committed adultery with Bathsheba.” The title connects the psalm with the events recorded in 2 Sam. 11–12 and suggests that David wrote the song in response to his sin and Nathan’s confrontation.

Although only a handful of the psalms have such a historical title, it is likely that most psalms were composed in response to some specific circumstance that encouraged the author to write. Interestingly, though, the psalmists do not speak about the specific circumstance in the psalm itself. Psalm 51, for instance, fits perfectly with the situation that the title describes in that it expresses guilt toward God and asks for forgiveness, but nowhere does it speak specifically about adultery. The psalmists do this intentionally because they are writing the song not as a memorial to an event, but rather as a prayer that others who have had similar though not identical experiences can use after them. Thus, Ps. 51 has been used as a model prayer for many penitents, whether they have sinned like David or in another way.

Most modern hymns have a similar background. John Newton, for instance, was inspired to write “Amazing Grace” because of awe that he felt at his conversion to Christianity from the evil of being a slave trader. However, when he wrote it, he wanted others to sing it as reflecting not on his conversion but on their own.

Collection

The psalms were composed over a thousand-year period. Thus, it appears that the book of Psalms was a growing collection until it came to a close at an unknown time between the writing of the two Testaments.

In 1 Chron. 16:7–36 we may get a glimpse of how the process worked. The text describes David turning a musical composition over to the Levitical musician Asaph and his associates. It is likely that the priests kept an official copy of the book of Psalms in the holy place (the temple while it stood). The psalms, after all, were the hymns of ancient Israel. Their primary function was as a corporate book of prayer, though certainly they could be used in private devotions (note Hannah’s prayer in 1 Sam. 2:1–10 and its relationship to Ps. 113).

Organization and Structure

The psalms have no obvious organization that explains the location of all the psalms. They are not organized in terms of genre, authorship, time of composition, or length. There is only one statement about organization, found in Ps. 72:20: “This concludes the prayers of David son of Jesse.” In the light of this comment, it is surprising that a number of Davidic psalms appear in subsequent sections (Pss. 101; 103; 108–110; 122; 124; 131; 133; 138–145). The best explanation is that at one point Ps. 72 concluded the Davidic psalms, but there was a reorganization before the canonical order was permanently closed.

A number of contemporary theories try to find some deep structure to the book, but it is best to refrain from speculation in regard to the overall structure. Nonetheless, a few structural characteristics are obvious. First, the division of Psalms into five books seems to reflect the fivefold division of the Pentateuch:

I. Book 1 (Pss. 1–41)

II. Book 2 (Pss. 42–72)

III. Book 3 (Pss. 73–89)

IV. Book 4 (Pss. 90–106)

V. Book 5 (Pss. 107–150)

Each book ends with a doxology. Such an intentional association with the Pentateuch would lend support to the Psalter’s claim to authority. Although these are prayers to God, they are also God’s word.

Second, within the Psalter there are subcollections. That is, there are psalms that came into the book not individually but as a group. The best-known such group are the Psalms of Ascent (Pss. 120–134), probably so named because worshipers sang them while going up (ascending) to the Temple Mount during one of the annual religious festivals in Jerusalem.

Third, it appears that psalms are intentionally placed at the beginning and at the end of the book to serve as an introduction and a conclusion. Psalms 1–2 serve as an introduction that alerts the reader to the twin important themes of law and messiah. Psalm 1 pronounces a blessing on those who love God’s law. The psalms, after all, are an intimate and personal conversation with God. One must be on the side of the godly to enter such a holy textual space, just as one must be godly to enter the precincts of the temple. After the reader enters, Psalm 2 provides an encounter with God and his anointed one (messiah). At the end of the book, the last five psalms (Pss. 146–150) constitute a tremendous doxology of praise.

This leads to the final observation on structure. Psalms of lament predominate at the beginning of the book, but they give way to hymns of praise toward the end. It is almost as if one enters the Psalter mourning and leaves it praising. Indeed, the Psalter brings the reader into contact with God and thus transforms the reader from sadness to joy.

Literary Considerations

Genre. The individual psalms may be identified as songs, prayers, or poems. Specifically, they are lyric poems (expressing the emotions of the poet), often addressed to God, and set to musical accompaniment. Although the categories overlap, seven different types of psalms can be recognized, with the first three being by far the most common.

• Lament. The largest single group of psalms are the laments, characterized by the expression of unhappy emotions: sadness, disappointment, anger, worry. The lamenters call on God to save them, even while at times complaining about God’s actions toward them (Ps. 42:9–10). Some laments contain petitions for forgiveness (Ps. 51), while others assert innocence of any wrongdoing (Ps. 26). A few laments even contain curses directed toward the enemies who are trying to harm the psalmist (Ps. 69:19–28). Most laments end by praising God or reaffirming confidence in God (Ps. 130:7–8). Usually the reason for the change from mourning to rejoicing is not given, but Ps. 77 pinpoints the reason as the memory of God’s great salvation events in the past (vv. 10, 16–20). One psalm, Ps. 88, laments but never makes the turn, remaining in the pit of despair. Yet even here we have a glimmer of hope in that the one who laments is still speaking to God.

• Thanksgiving. When God answers a lament, the response is thanksgiving. Psalms of thanksgiving are very similar to hymns (see below), but they cite an earlier problem that God has addressed. Psalm 30 praises God for restoring the psalmist’s good fortune and health after he suffered due to his earlier arrogance that led him to forget God (vv. 6–7).

• Hymn. Hymns are psalms of unalloyed praise directed toward God. The psalmists often call for others to join their worship of God (Ps. 100).

• Remembrance. While many psalms evoke memories of God’s actions in the past (as the lament in Ps. 77 recalls the exodus), certain psalms focus on rehearsing the actions of God in the past. Psalm 136 is one of the most memorable examples. As a liturgical psalm, it recites a divine action (“[God] swept Pharaoh and his army into the Red Sea” [v. 15]) followed by a congregational response (“His love endures forever”).

• Confidence. These psalms are defined by their mood of quiet trust in God even in the midst of trouble. They often present a reassuring image of God. The picture of God as a shepherd in Ps. 23 or as a mother in Ps. 131 are good examples.

• Wisdom. Some psalms meditate on the law (Pss. 1; 119) or have interests similar to those of wisdom literature, such as Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes (Pss. 49; 73).

• Kingship. A number of psalms praise God as king (Ps. 47) or the human king as his agent (Pss. 20–21) or both (Ps. 2).

Style. The psalms are poems, and so their style is characterized by the use of parallelism and figurative language. Poetry is also notable for its short lines. A poet packs a lot of meaning into very few words. So it is important to slow down and reflect on a psalm in order to derive its maximum effect. Besides brevity of expression, parallelism, and figurative language, poets create interest by using other literary tools. The psalmists use these poetic devices not only to inform their readers’ intellect but also to stimulate their imagination and arouse their emotions. (See also Acrostic; Imagery; Poetry.)

Theological Message

Although the psalms are not theological essays, readers can learn about God and their relationship with God from these poems. The book of Psalms is a bit like a portrait gallery of God, using images to describe who he is and the nature of our relationship with him. Some examples include God as shepherd (Ps. 23), king (Ps. 47), warrior (Ps. 98), and mother (Ps. 131), and the list could be greatly expanded. Each one of these picture images casts light on the nature of God and also the nature of our relationship with God. After all, the aforementioned psalms explicitly or implicitly describe God’s people as sheep, subjects, soldiers, and children.

Connection to the New Testament and Today

Jesus himself draws attention to Psalms as a book that anticipated his coming suffering and glorification (Luke 24:25–27, 44). The Gospels recognized that Jesus’ zeal for God was well expressed by Ps. 69:9 (John 2:17). When at the apex of his suffering on the cross, Jesus uttered the words found in Ps. 22:1 (Matt. 27:46). The NT writers also saw that Jesus was the fulfillment of the covenant that promised that a son of David would have an everlasting throne (2 Sam. 7:16). Accordingly, the royal psalms (e.g., Pss. 2; 110) often were applied to Jesus, who is the Messiah (the Christ, “the anointed one”).

Today we read Psalms not only as an ancient witness to the coming work of Christ but also, as John Calvin put it, as a mirror of our souls. The psalms were written for worshipers who came after them with similar though not identical joys and problems. The psalms should become models of our prayers.

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)

Made by Aaron while Moses was on Mount Sinai, the golden calf was an image fashioned from gold jewelry donated by the Israelites, who grew impatient waiting for Moses as he spent forty days and nights receiving instructions from God (Exod. 32). It became an object of idolatrous worship and a cause of corrupt behavior.

Opinions differ as to whether the calf was intended as a substitute for the absent Moses (who later appears literally “horned” [Heb. qaran] in Exod. 34:30 [cf. Douay-Rheims version; NIV: “radiant”]), or for Yahweh, or as a pedestal for Yahweh (like the cherubim above the ark of the covenant). The bovine form of the image is possibly due to Egyptian influence. The word “calf” could be the writer’s contemptuous term for what may have been thought of as a bull image (symbolizing strength), or it may have been intended to refer to a bull in its prime.

Moses’ response on seeing the image is to smash the two tablets containing the Ten Commandments, signifying the end of the covenant between God and Israel. He burned the image, pulverized it, scattered it on the water, and made the Israelites drink it. While initially it seemed uncertain whether there could be any future for the covenant, Exod. 33–34 serves to resolve this.

The episode of the golden calf lived long in Israel’s memory as the paradigm instance of apostasy (Ps. 106:19–20; Acts 7:41). King Jeroboam I repeated the offense, setting up golden calves at Dan and Bethel (1 Kings 12:28) to discourage citizens of the northern kingdom from traveling to the southern capital Jerusalem, where their allegiance might switch to the Davidic king.

The reddish brown fruit (drupe) of the date palm (Phoenix dactylifera), which is prevalent around oases in the desert but also easily cultivated (Exod. 15:27 NASB; Josephus, J.W. 7.296; Ant. 10.190). The name of the biblical city Jericho means “city of palms” (see Deut. 34:3; 2 Chron. 28:15). Dates remain a staple food throughout the Middle East. They are handpicked by cutting the fronds, shaking them into containers, and then sun-drying them. Eaten raw, they are also folded into dough for date cakes on special occasions (see 2 Sam. 6:19; 16:1–2 LXX; cf. Song 5:11 NASB).

Dathan–A descendant of Reuben through Eliab who, along with his brother Abiram, rebelled against Moses and Aaron with Korah son of Izhar. In one of the more memorable events of Israelite history, God executed judgment on Korah, Dathan, and Abiram by causing the earth to open up and swallow them and their families alive (Num. 16:1–35; 26:9–10; cf. Ps. 106:17).

Made by Aaron while Moses was on Mount Sinai, the golden calf was an image fashioned from gold jewelry donated by the Israelites, who grew impatient waiting for Moses as he spent forty days and nights receiving instructions from God (Exod. 32). It became an object of idolatrous worship and a cause of corrupt behavior.

Opinions differ as to whether the calf was intended as a substitute for the absent Moses (who later appears literally “horned” [Heb. qaran] in Exod. 34:30 [cf. Douay-Rheims version; NIV: “radiant”]), or for Yahweh, or as a pedestal for Yahweh (like the cherubim above the ark of the covenant). The bovine form of the image is possibly due to Egyptian influence. The word “calf” could be the writer’s contemptuous term for what may have been thought of as a bull image (symbolizing strength), or it may have been intended to refer to a bull in its prime.

Moses’ response on seeing the image is to smash the two tablets containing the Ten Commandments, signifying the end of the covenant between God and Israel. He burned the image, pulverized it, scattered it on the water, and made the Israelites drink it. While initially it seemed uncertain whether there could be any future for the covenant, Exod. 33–34 serves to resolve this.

The episode of the golden calf lived long in Israel’s memory as the paradigm instance of apostasy (Ps. 106:19–20; Acts 7:41). King Jeroboam I repeated the offense, setting up golden calves at Dan and Bethel (1 Kings 12:28) to discourage citizens of the northern kingdom from traveling to the southern capital Jerusalem, where their allegiance might switch to the Davidic king.

Made by Aaron while Moses was on Mount Sinai, the golden calf was an image fashioned from gold jewelry donated by the Israelites, who grew impatient waiting for Moses as he spent forty days and nights receiving instructions from God (Exod. 32). It became an object of idolatrous worship and a cause of corrupt behavior.

Opinions differ as to whether the calf was intended as a substitute for the absent Moses (who later appears literally “horned” [Heb. qaran] in Exod. 34:30 [cf. Douay-Rheims version; NIV: “radiant”]), or for Yahweh, or as a pedestal for Yahweh (like the cherubim above the ark of the covenant). The bovine form of the image is possibly due to Egyptian influence. The word “calf” could be the writer’s contemptuous term for what may have been thought of as a bull image (symbolizing strength), or it may have been intended to refer to a bull in its prime.

Moses’ response on seeing the image is to smash the two tablets containing the Ten Commandments, signifying the end of the covenant between God and Israel. He burned the image, pulverized it, scattered it on the water, and made the Israelites drink it. While initially it seemed uncertain whether there could be any future for the covenant, Exod. 33–34 serves to resolve this.

The episode of the golden calf lived long in Israel’s memory as the paradigm instance of apostasy (Ps. 106:19–20; Acts 7:41). King Jeroboam I repeated the offense, setting up golden calves at Dan and Bethel (1 Kings 12:28) to discourage citizens of the northern kingdom from traveling to the southern capital Jerusalem, where their allegiance might switch to the Davidic king.

An image or likeness of a deity, whether carved from wood, molded from metal, or even formed in one’s mind. Although idols are not strictly equivalent to the gods they represent—even pagans recognized that idols are only the physical medium through which a spirit reveals itself—the Bible does not distinguish between worshiping idols, worshiping other gods, or worshiping Yahweh through images.

In contrast to other ancient religions, the Bible rejects worship of all images as incompatible with worship of God. This includes images of Yahweh, since he is transcendent and cannot be represented by anything in creation. As Moses reminded Israel, they saw no form at Sinai but only heard God’s voice (Deut. 4:12). No form can adequately represent Yahweh, as he is incomparable. The Bible similarly forbids worshiping images of other deities because it elevates them to the status reserved for God alone. Thus, the second commandment prohibits making and worshiping idols in the image of anything found in heaven, on earth, or in the water (Exod. 20:4–5).

Idolatry is regularly likened to spiritual adultery or prostitution because it marks a breakdown of God’s covenant relationship with his people (Deut. 31:16; Ps. 106:36–39; Hos. 4:12–19). This corresponds to the fact that idol worship often included cultic prostitution and fertility rites. Prophets and psalmists alike ridiculed idols as things fashioned by human hands that were unable to see, hear, or otherwise help those who made them. Rather, these “gods” depended on humans for transportation and protection (Ps. 115:4–8; Isa. 40:19–20; 44:9–20). Idolaters were warned that they would become as worthless as the things they worshiped. While declaring that idols amount to nothing, both Testaments nevertheless consider them spiritually dangerous. This is because idols lead people away from properly worshiping Yahweh and expose them to demonic influences.

Despite its warnings against idolatry, the Bible records that Israel regularly failed to keep itself pure. Right after God’s supreme revelation at Sinai, Aaron led the nation in making and worshiping a golden calf (Exod. 32). The book of Judges shows how society had become degraded to the point that a man, Micah, and a tribe, Dan, engaged in idol worship (Judg. 17–18). When the monarchy was divided after Solomon’s rule, Jeroboam revived calf worship to preserve the loyalty of his people (1 Kings 12:25–33). Both historical and prophetic books cite idolatry as a major reason for the exile.

By NT times, idol worship was no longer a problem for Jews, but it remained an important issue for the growing church because many believers came from idolatrous backgrounds. Thus, the apostles included idolatry in lists of sins to be judged, warned their readers to flee from it, and addressed eating food sacrificed to idols. Indicating that idolatry went beyond worship of images, they linked it with the love of money (Matt. 6:24) and greed (Col. 3:5). The NT authors believed that their readers could turn from idols to worship the true and living God, praised them for doing so, and looked to the time when all idol worship would cease.

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).

The Hebrew word yeshimon (“wasteland”) is used in the OT to identify a barren region of land (Deut. 32:10; Pss. 68:7; 78:40; 106:14; 107:4; Isa. 43:19–20). It can also be translated as a proper noun referring to a specific location. Thus, Jeshimon is an area of the hill country of Judah in the Desert of Maon where David and his men hid from the jealous wrath of Saul (1 Sam. 23:19, 24; 26:1, 3). Occasionally it is unclear whether the word is a place name or a general description. For example, the NIV translates the word for the desert land east of the Jordan overlooked by Mount Pisgah and Mount Peor as “wasteland” (Num. 21:20; 23:28), whereas other versions retain the proper name “Jeshimon” (e.g., KJV, GW).

The English transliteration of the Greek word meaning “preaching, proclamation, message,” “kerygma” was coined as a scholarly term by C. H. Dodd, a professor of NT at Cambridge University, in 1964. In a lecture series titled “The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments,” Dodd observed that four of Peter’s proclamations of the gospel message (Acts 2:14–36, 38–39; 3:12–26; 4:8–15) follow an identifiable pattern. They present basic facts as interpreted through the eternal perspective of the first-century church: (1) The age of prophetic fulfillment has dawned. (2) This has occurred through the ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus. (3) Jesus is exalted at the right hand of God as the messianic head of Israel. (4) The Holy Spirit in the church is the sign of Christ’s present power and glory. (5) The messianic age will soon be consummated in the return of Christ. (6) Therefore, hearers are to repent to receive forgiveness, the Holy Spirit, and salvation.

Dodd further developed his ideas by examining the Gospels and finding that they conform to the essential kerygma pattern as well (Mark particularly clearly so), as do the gospel summaries appearing in the writings of Paul and John. Each contains an essential core of information: the prophetic announcement of Jesus, especially through the ministry of John the Baptist, the trial and crucifixion of Jesus, his burial, his resurrection from the dead, and the affirmation of these events through the testimony of eyewitnesses. Examples of kerygma are found in Acts 5:30–32; 10:34–43; 13:16–41; 17:1–4; 26:12–29; 1 Cor. 15:1–11.

Noticeably absent from all these passages, however, is any mention of the ethical teaching of the NT. Dodd was emphatic that kerygma be distinguished from teaching, by which he meant the doctrinal, ethical, and apologetic aspects of Christianity. These he understood as appropriate to the life and thought of those already established in the faith but different from the evangelistic proclamation of kerygma, the purpose of which is to call unbelievers to salvation in Christ. Put another way, kerygma is primary, while teaching is secondary; the latter is effective only when presented to those who have already repented and believed.

Since Dodd, “kerygma” has been applied to the OT as well, where it refers to the specific saving acts of God, structured similarly to the NT speech of Stephen (Acts 7:2–53). Examples include Pss. 78; 105; 106; 135; 136.

The second of Ham’s four sons and a grandson of Noah (Gen. 10:6; NIV: “Egypt”). Mizraim, like his brothers, Cush, Put, and Canaan, is named as the progenitor of people who lived in northern Africa or Palestine. As his descendants settled in Egypt, “Mizraim” became the common Hebrew word for Egypt as a kingdom and for the Egyptians as a people. The relationship between Mizraim and Ham is reflected in the psalms, which sometimes refer to Egypt as the land or tents of Ham (Pss. 78:51; 105:23, 27; 106:22).

Oral, ceremonial, or physical defilement, desecration, corruption, contamination; to make morally, ceremonially, or physically unclean or impure; to make filthy (Num. 35:33; 2 Chron. 36:14; Ezra 2:62; Neh. 7:64; Ps. 106:38; Prov. 25:26; Isa. 24:5; Jer. 3:1, 2, 9; 16:18; Ezek. 23:30; Zeph. 3:1, 4; Mal. 1:7, 12; Acts 15:20; 2 Pet. 2:10, 20). The choice of “pollution/pollute” rather than a synonym is a translation decision. The word occurs many other places in certain versions.

Pollution in modern secular usage generally refers to the dirtying of environmental spaces as a result of human activity, for example, air and water pollution. Proverbs 25:26 employs this understanding. More generally, the stewardship mandate given to humanity by God in Gen. 2:15 provides biblical support for the importance of caring for the environment. This would include reducing or eliminating known polluting activities and cleaning up previously polluted spaces. See also Clean, Cleanness.

Oral, ceremonial, or physical defilement, desecration, corruption, contamination; to make morally, ceremonially, or physically unclean or impure; to make filthy (Num. 35:33; 2 Chron. 36:14; Ezra 2:62; Neh. 7:64; Ps. 106:38; Prov. 25:26; Isa. 24:5; Jer. 3:1, 2, 9; 16:18; Ezek. 23:30; Zeph. 3:1, 4; Mal. 1:7, 12; Acts 15:20; 2 Pet. 2:10, 20). The choice of “pollution/pollute” rather than a synonym is a translation decision. The word occurs many other places in certain versions.

Pollution in modern secular usage generally refers to the dirtying of environmental spaces as a result of human activity, for example, air and water pollution. Proverbs 25:26 employs this understanding. More generally, the stewardship mandate given to humanity by God in Gen. 2:15 provides biblical support for the importance of caring for the environment. This would include reducing or eliminating known polluting activities and cleaning up previously polluted spaces. See also Clean, Cleanness.

The English transliteration of the Greek word meaning “preaching, proclamation, message,” “kerygma” was coined as a scholarly term by C. H. Dodd, a professor of NT at Cambridge University, in 1964. In a lecture series titled “The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments,” Dodd observed that four of Peter’s proclamations of the gospel message (Acts 2:14–36, 38–39; 3:12–26; 4:8–15) follow an identifiable pattern. They present basic facts as interpreted through the eternal perspective of the first-century church: (1) The age of prophetic fulfillment has dawned. (2) This has occurred through the ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus. (3) Jesus is exalted at the right hand of God as the messianic head of Israel. (4) The Holy Spirit in the church is the sign of Christ’s present power and glory. (5) The messianic age will soon be consummated in the return of Christ. (6) Therefore, hearers are to repent to receive forgiveness, the Holy Spirit, and salvation.

Dodd further developed his ideas by examining the Gospels and finding that they conform to the essential kerygma pattern as well (Mark particularly clearly so), as do the gospel summaries appearing in the writings of Paul and John. Each contains an essential core of information: the prophetic announcement of Jesus, especially through the ministry of John the Baptist, the trial and crucifixion of Jesus, his burial, his resurrection from the dead, and the affirmation of these events through the testimony of eyewitnesses. Examples of kerygma are found in Acts 5:30–32; 10:34–43; 13:16–41; 17:1–4; 26:12–29; 1 Cor. 15:1–11.

Noticeably absent from all these passages, however, is any mention of the ethical teaching of the NT. Dodd was emphatic that kerygma be distinguished from teaching, by which he meant the doctrinal, ethical, and apologetic aspects of Christianity. These he understood as appropriate to the life and thought of those already established in the faith but different from the evangelistic proclamation of kerygma, the purpose of which is to call unbelievers to salvation in Christ. Put another way, kerygma is primary, while teaching is secondary; the latter is effective only when presented to those who have already repented and believed.

Since Dodd, “kerygma” has been applied to the OT as well, where it refers to the specific saving acts of God, structured similarly to the NT speech of Stephen (Acts 7:2–53). Examples include Pss. 78; 105; 106; 135; 136.

A collection of 150 poems. They are the hymnbook of the OT period, used in public worship. Psalms contains songs of different lengths, types, and dates. The earliest psalm (Ps. 90) is attributed to Moses (mid-second millennium BC), while the content of Ps. 126 and Ps. 137 points to the latest periods of the OT (mid-first millennium BC). They continue to be used as a source of public worship and private devotion.

Historical Background

Most psalms have a title. In the Hebrew text this title comprises the first verse, whereas English translations set it off before the first verse. Titles vary. Many name an author (e.g., David [Ps. 3]; Asaph [Ps. 77]; sons of Korah [Ps. 42]), while others provide information about genre (e.g., Psalms of Ascent [Pss. 120–134]), tune (e.g., “Do Not Destroy” [Ps. 75]), use in worship (Ps. 92), and a circumstance that led to composition (Ps. 51). Information in the title gives hints concerning how psalms were written and brought into a final collection.

Composition

As mentioned, the titles of the psalms often give indications of authorship and occasionally name the circumstance that led to the writing of the psalm. A good example is Ps. 51, where the title states, “For the director of music. A psalm of David. When the prophet Nathan came to him after David had committed adultery with Bathsheba.” The title connects the psalm with the events recorded in 2 Sam. 11–12 and suggests that David wrote the song in response to his sin and Nathan’s confrontation.

Although only a handful of the psalms have such a historical title, it is likely that most psalms were composed in response to some specific circumstance that encouraged the author to write. Interestingly, though, the psalmists do not speak about the specific circumstance in the psalm itself. Psalm 51, for instance, fits perfectly with the situation that the title describes in that it expresses guilt toward God and asks for forgiveness, but nowhere does it speak specifically about adultery. The psalmists do this intentionally because they are writing the song not as a memorial to an event, but rather as a prayer that others who have had similar though not identical experiences can use after them. Thus, Ps. 51 has been used as a model prayer for many penitents, whether they have sinned like David or in another way.

Most modern hymns have a similar background. John Newton, for instance, was inspired to write “Amazing Grace” because of awe that he felt at his conversion to Christianity from the evil of being a slave trader. However, when he wrote it, he wanted others to sing it as reflecting not on his conversion but on their own.

Collection

The psalms were composed over a thousand-year period. Thus, it appears that the book of Psalms was a growing collection until it came to a close at an unknown time between the writing of the two Testaments.

In 1 Chron. 16:7–36 we may get a glimpse of how the process worked. The text describes David turning a musical composition over to the Levitical musician Asaph and his associates. It is likely that the priests kept an official copy of the book of Psalms in the holy place (the temple while it stood). The psalms, after all, were the hymns of ancient Israel. Their primary function was as a corporate book of prayer, though certainly they could be used in private devotions (note Hannah’s prayer in 1 Sam. 2:1–10 and its relationship to Ps. 113).

Organization and Structure

The psalms have no obvious organization that explains the location of all the psalms. They are not organized in terms of genre, authorship, time of composition, or length. There is only one statement about organization, found in Ps. 72:20: “This concludes the prayers of David son of Jesse.” In the light of this comment, it is surprising that a number of Davidic psalms appear in subsequent sections (Pss. 101; 103; 108–110; 122; 124; 131; 133; 138–145). The best explanation is that at one point Ps. 72 concluded the Davidic psalms, but there was a reorganization before the canonical order was permanently closed.

A number of contemporary theories try to find some deep structure to the book, but it is best to refrain from speculation in regard to the overall structure. Nonetheless, a few structural characteristics are obvious. First, the division of Psalms into five books seems to reflect the fivefold division of the Pentateuch:

I. Book 1 (Pss. 1–41)

II. Book 2 (Pss. 42–72)

III. Book 3 (Pss. 73–89)

IV. Book 4 (Pss. 90–106)

V. Book 5 (Pss. 107–150)

Each book ends with a doxology. Such an intentional association with the Pentateuch would lend support to the Psalter’s claim to authority. Although these are prayers to God, they are also God’s word.

Second, within the Psalter there are subcollections. That is, there are psalms that came into the book not individually but as a group. The best-known such group are the Psalms of Ascent (Pss. 120–134), probably so named because worshipers sang them while going up (ascending) to the Temple Mount during one of the annual religious festivals in Jerusalem.

Third, it appears that psalms are intentionally placed at the beginning and at the end of the book to serve as an introduction and a conclusion. Psalms 1–2 serve as an introduction that alerts the reader to the twin important themes of law and messiah. Psalm 1 pronounces a blessing on those who love God’s law. The psalms, after all, are an intimate and personal conversation with God. One must be on the side of the godly to enter such a holy textual space, just as one must be godly to enter the precincts of the temple. After the reader enters, Psalm 2 provides an encounter with God and his anointed one (messiah). At the end of the book, the last five psalms (Pss. 146–150) constitute a tremendous doxology of praise.

This leads to the final observation on structure. Psalms of lament predominate at the beginning of the book, but they give way to hymns of praise toward the end. It is almost as if one enters the Psalter mourning and leaves it praising. Indeed, the Psalter brings the reader into contact with God and thus transforms the reader from sadness to joy.

Literary Considerations

Genre. The individual psalms may be identified as songs, prayers, or poems. Specifically, they are lyric poems (expressing the emotions of the poet), often addressed to God, and set to musical accompaniment. Although the categories overlap, seven different types of psalms can be recognized, with the first three being by far the most common.

• Lament. The largest single group of psalms are the laments, characterized by the expression of unhappy emotions: sadness, disappointment, anger, worry. The lamenters call on God to save them, even while at times complaining about God’s actions toward them (Ps. 42:9–10). Some laments contain petitions for forgiveness (Ps. 51), while others assert innocence of any wrongdoing (Ps. 26). A few laments even contain curses directed toward the enemies who are trying to harm the psalmist (Ps. 69:19–28). Most laments end by praising God or reaffirming confidence in God (Ps. 130:7–8). Usually the reason for the change from mourning to rejoicing is not given, but Ps. 77 pinpoints the reason as the memory of God’s great salvation events in the past (vv. 10, 16–20). One psalm, Ps. 88, laments but never makes the turn, remaining in the pit of despair. Yet even here we have a glimmer of hope in that the one who laments is still speaking to God.

• Thanksgiving. When God answers a lament, the response is thanksgiving. Psalms of thanksgiving are very similar to hymns (see below), but they cite an earlier problem that God has addressed. Psalm 30 praises God for restoring the psalmist’s good fortune and health after he suffered due to his earlier arrogance that led him to forget God (vv. 6–7).

• Hymn. Hymns are psalms of unalloyed praise directed toward God. The psalmists often call for others to join their worship of God (Ps. 100).

• Remembrance. While many psalms evoke memories of God’s actions in the past (as the lament in Ps. 77 recalls the exodus), certain psalms focus on rehearsing the actions of God in the past. Psalm 136 is one of the most memorable examples. As a liturgical psalm, it recites a divine action (“[God] swept Pharaoh and his army into the Red Sea” [v. 15]) followed by a congregational response (“His love endures forever”).

• Confidence. These psalms are defined by their mood of quiet trust in God even in the midst of trouble. They often present a reassuring image of God. The picture of God as a shepherd in Ps. 23 or as a mother in Ps. 131 are good examples.

• Wisdom. Some psalms meditate on the law (Pss. 1; 119) or have interests similar to those of wisdom literature, such as Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes (Pss. 49; 73).

• Kingship. A number of psalms praise God as king (Ps. 47) or the human king as his agent (Pss. 20–21) or both (Ps. 2).

Style. The psalms are poems, and so their style is characterized by the use of parallelism and figurative language. Poetry is also notable for its short lines. A poet packs a lot of meaning into very few words. So it is important to slow down and reflect on a psalm in order to derive its maximum effect. Besides brevity of expression, parallelism, and figurative language, poets create interest by using other literary tools. The psalmists use these poetic devices not only to inform their readers’ intellect but also to stimulate their imagination and arouse their emotions. (See also Acrostic; Imagery; Poetry.)

Theological Message

Although the psalms are not theological essays, readers can learn about God and their relationship with God from these poems. The book of Psalms is a bit like a portrait gallery of God, using images to describe who he is and the nature of our relationship with him. Some examples include God as shepherd (Ps. 23), king (Ps. 47), warrior (Ps. 98), and mother (Ps. 131), and the list could be greatly expanded. Each one of these picture images casts light on the nature of God and also the nature of our relationship with God. After all, the aforementioned psalms explicitly or implicitly describe God’s people as sheep, subjects, soldiers, and children.

Connection to the New Testament and Today

Jesus himself draws attention to Psalms as a book that anticipated his coming suffering and glorification (Luke 24:25–27, 44). The Gospels recognized that Jesus’ zeal for God was well expressed by Ps. 69:9 (John 2:17). When at the apex of his suffering on the cross, Jesus uttered the words found in Ps. 22:1 (Matt. 27:46). The NT writers also saw that Jesus was the fulfillment of the covenant that promised that a son of David would have an everlasting throne (2 Sam. 7:16). Accordingly, the royal psalms (e.g., Pss. 2; 110) often were applied to Jesus, who is the Messiah (the Christ, “the anointed one”).

Today we read Psalms not only as an ancient witness to the coming work of Christ but also, as John Calvin put it, as a mirror of our souls. The psalms were written for worshipers who came after them with similar though not identical joys and problems. The psalms should become models of our prayers.

The most focused narrative of Jesus’ temptation follows his baptism, but the Gospels have not isolated Jesus’ temptations to this one event. Rather, as Mark 8:33; Luke 22:28, and other texts indicate, Jesus knew temptations throughout his ministry (cf. Heb. 2:18; 4:15). References in John’s Gospel, which has no account of Jesus’ temptation in the desert, suggest the same (John 6:15; 7:1–4).

All three Synoptic Gospels place the temptation narrative immediately following Jesus’ baptism. Discussions of whether this event was actual or merely visual, one that Jesus described to his disciples or one that they created from miscellaneous sayings after Jesus’ death to parallel Deut. 8:2, will undoubtedly continue. As the Synoptics recount the event, Mark reduces it to one verse (Mark 1:13), whereas Matthew and Luke give full accounts, delineating in three acts the struggle between Jesus and Satan. Matthew and Luke recount these acts in a different sequence, possibly due to Luke’s interest in Jerusalem and the temple or to his desire to use Ps. 106 as his outline (manna, golden calf, testing God [cf. Luke 4:1–13]). Matthew portrays a progression climaxing in a display of Satan’s true character, after which Jesus ends Satan’s attack and sends him away with a clarifying quote from Deut. 6:13: “Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only” (Matt. 4:1–11). Opposite the first Adam, who gave in to the temptation to stop trusting God, the second Adam, Jesus, conquered his temptation with an affirmation that worship of God should remain undivided.

The placement of Jesus’ temptation at the outset of his ministry, immediately following his baptism, speaks to the significance of the event. All three Synoptics emphasize that God’s Spirit led Jesus to the desert to be tempted by the devil. There is no sharp distinction between testing and temptation; God uses Satan’s temptation to test Jesus. The desert setting as the preparatory proving ground for extraordinary usability in God’s kingdom follows the general wilderness motif that runs through Scripture (e.g., Abraham, Moses, Israel) and places Jesus squarely in the center of God’s salvation history. Jesus fulfills God’s messianic promise.

Introducing two of the three temptations by an affirmation of Jesus’ divine sonship gives the event a strong messianic character (Satan’s statements are better understood as affirmations [“Since you are the Son of God . . .”] than as questions [“If you are the Son of God . . .”]). Since Jesus knows that he is the Son of God, he is tempted to disobey for his own benefit (cf. Gen. 3:4–6).

No reader familiar with the stories of the OT can miss the way Jesus’ temptations parallel major OT events. Not only does the devil try to lure Jesus to satisfy his personal needs by a misuse of his power, as becomes obvious from Jesus’ answer quoting Deut. 8:3, but also he entices Jesus to display a power that replicates God’s manna miracle in the desert. Furthermore, the connection between this first temptation to eat what he is not supposed to eat and the original temptation to eat the forbidden fruit (Gen. 3) seems too obvious to miss.

Jesus’ second temptation in Matthew (Luke’s third) portrays Satan bringing Jesus to the highest point of the temple to overlook Kidron Valley, where a fall meant certain death. From here, the devil quotes Ps. 91:11–12, giving scriptural basis for his trap. The symbolic character of this setting proves powerful. Satan challenges Jesus to test God’s faithfulness to his word in the context of the temple. If Jesus cannot trust God’s promise to protect his people even in the temple, then his very mission proves void. Again, the reference to the original temptation, Satan (mis)quoting God in God’s own setting, sets the stage for the portrayal of Jesus’ answer. Unlike the first Adam, Jesus unravels Satan’s scheme by exposing the mistake of confusing God’s promise to protect those who stumble and fall with a deliberate act designed to force God’s hand. Such would be to test (tempt) God, which Scripture explicitly forbids (Deut. 6:16). Whether Jesus quoting Deut. 6:16 speaks directly to his own self-understanding is uncertain but unlikely.

Matthew ends his temptation account with Jesus on a high mountain, overlooking the kingdoms of the world, where Satan offers world authority in exchange for Jesus’ worship. There is no reflection on whether these kingdoms were Satan’s to give, and no explicit naming of Jesus as God’s Son (although a subtle reference to Ps. 2 is likely to echo in the reader’s mind [see Matt. 3:17]). Matthew’s reference to a mountain (Matt. 4:8), which Luke does not mention (Luke 4:5), corresponds to his mountain motif and functions here to parallel the location of Jesus’ discipleship commission to bring God’s kingdom to all nations (Matt. 28:16–20), causing them to transfer their worship to God. Rather than worshiping Satan, Jesus conquers Satan’s temptations and, as the second Adam, brings the nations back to the worship of God (Matt. 4:10).

Those who offer themselves freely and willingly, without compulsion or consideration of value in return, to perform a task, make a vow, or serve another. In the OT, volunteers usually serve God (Deut. 23:23; 2 Chron. 17:16; Ps. 110:3), Israel (Ezra 7:13; Neh. 11:2), or a leader in Israel (Judg. 5:2, 9; 1 Chron. 28:21). God himself is the ultimate volunteer, as he freely gives place, purpose, and a partner to Adam (Gen. 2:15–22); unilaterally covenants with Abram to give him descendants, blessing, and land (Gen. 12:2–3; 15:17–21); liberates Israel from bondage in Egypt (Exod. 6:6–8; Deut. 20:1; Josh. 24:17; Ps. 81:10); and remains faithful to Israel despite its repeated failures (Pss. 68:35; 106:44–46).

In the NT, God is also the sender of Jesus (Matt. 10:40; Mark 9:37; Luke 4:18–21; John 4:34; 5:24, 30, 36–37), who heals of his own volition (Luke 5:13), gives rest to the weary (Matt. 11:28), and lays down his life of his own accord for our redemption (Mark 10:45; John 10:18; Gal. 3:13–14; Eph. 5:2; Titus 2:14; 1 Pet. 1:18–19). With Jesus as the standard, the concept of willingly giving of oneself and one’s possessions runs throughout the NT (Eph. 5:1–2). Christians are called to love and serve one another in spiritual and practical ways (Acts 2:44–45; Rom. 12:9–21; 1 Thess. 5:15–18; Philem. 14). They are also to love their enemies and pray for their persecutors (Matt. 5:44; Luke 6:27, 35). Those who wish to lead must first volunteer themselves as servants to others (Matt. 20:27; Mark 9:35; Luke 22:26). Elders are to shepherd voluntarily (1 Pet. 5:2). Paul, who urges Christians to offer their bodies as living sacrifices (Rom. 12:1), is himself a model of volunteerism and self-sacrifice (Acts 20:34–35; 21:13; 1 Cor. 9:19–23; 2 Cor. 4:5; 11:23–27).

In the biblical account of the exodus, Israel’s departure from Egypt begins in Exod. 12:37. The original intention was for the Israelites to go to Mount Sinai to receive the law and instructions for the tabernacle and then to proceed to Canaan. But Israel’s trip was not to be quite that simple. Because of the Israelites’ disobedience in the desert, they were condemned to a forty-year period of wilderness wandering, enough time for those twenty years of age or older during the rebellion to die in the wilderness (see Num. 14, which describes what is actually the final rebellion in a series of grumbling incidents that go back to Exod. 15:22–27).

Technically, the wilderness period began immediately after the crossing of the Red Sea. The Israelites passed through the Desert of Shur, the Desert of Sin, Rephidim, and then Sinai itself. These locations, however, were only stations on the way to Sinai, and so they do not pertain to the specific forty-year period of punishment, which begins in Num. 14. Their wandering period would not be officially over until they crossed the Jordan River and entered Canaan (Josh. 3:17).

Mapping the Route

The wilderness wandering, like the exodus and the passage through the Red Sea, are very difficult to outline precisely from a geographical and archaeological point of view. Many of the places named in the lists have not been located. Moreover, the two itinerary lists, one in Num. 33 and the other at various points in Num. 11–22, do not agree on every point. Although the two lists do not directly conflict, Num. 33 includes many more sites than Num. 11–22 and leaves out relatively few. One reason for this difference may be that only Num. 33 is actually intended to be an itinerary, whereas the sites mentioned elsewhere in Numbers are injected in the course of a narrative.

What contributes to difficulties in locating the wilderness route is that biblical names are not those used today, not to mention that many of these places no longer exist at all. Moreover, similarities between some names then and now have no necessary bearing on the issue. Also, it seems that at least some of the biblical names are symbolic. For example, “Meribah” means “quarreling,” and “Massah” means “testing.” These names seem to reflect the events recorded in Exod. 17 rather than being original names.

One of the most contested issues concerning the wilderness wandering is where it began: the location of Mount Sinai. It is commonly accepted that this mountain is located somewhere in the Sinai Peninsula, although numerous places have been suggested. Best known, perhaps, is Jebel Musa, the location of St. Catherine’s monastery, located in the southern portion of the peninsula. This is based not so much on historical evidence, however, as on church tradition. Another theory puts Mount Sinai in the eastern portion of the peninsula, near Midian. One factor in favor of this theory is that Moses first met God on Mount Sinai when he was living in Midian (with Zipporah, his wife, and Jethro, his father-in-law). According to Exod. 3:1, Moses left Jethro’s house to tend his sheep and it was on this journey that he came to Mount Sinai for the first time. Unless one presumes that he herded the sheep over one hundred miles in a southwesterly direction, into the desert, one might conclude that Mount Sinai is perhaps a more reasonable distance from Midian. But as with all theories regarding Sinai’s location, conclusive evidence is lacking.

Reminder of Rebellion and Its Consequences

Interest in the wilderness wanderings, however, extends beyond understanding ancient geography. There is also a powerful theological dimension, and this seems to be of greater importance for biblical writers. Wandering in the wilderness is Israel’s punishment for disobedience and rebellion. As such, it stands as a reminder for later Israelites to encourage them not to repeat that mistake. Indeed, the events of Numbers are not recounted merely to catalog arcane events but are preserved in writing to be a reminder for subsequent generations.

Israel’s wilderness experience is referenced in various portions of the OT. The rebellion is mentioned in Ps. 106:14, 26, and wilderness is associated with a place of death. Elsewhere the desert represents a place of God’s protection and provision for the new generation of Israelites living in the desert (Deut. 8:15–16; 29:5; 32:10; Ps. 136:16; Hos. 13:5).

Another example of a later appropriation of the wilderness tradition is found in Ps. 95, where the Israelites, perhaps in an exilic setting, are warned not to rebel as the exodus generation did (vv. 7–11). This same warning of Ps. 95 is picked up by the writer of Hebrews and applied to the church (Heb. 3:1–4:13). The author argues that since a greater mediator than Moses has come, the past warning holds all the more as the church goes through its period of wilderness wandering (which lasts until the church’s entrance into its heavenly promised land). The main difference Hebrews introduces is that the church’s period of wilderness wandering is not characterized by God’s wrath but rather is a time of God’s activity in redeeming the world.

In the biblical account of the exodus, Israel’s departure from Egypt begins in Exod. 12:37. The original intention was for the Israelites to go to Mount Sinai to receive the law and instructions for the tabernacle and then to proceed to Canaan. But Israel’s trip was not to be quite that simple. Because of the Israelites’ disobedience in the desert, they were condemned to a forty-year period of wilderness wandering, enough time for those twenty years of age or older during the rebellion to die in the wilderness (see Num. 14, which describes what is actually the final rebellion in a series of grumbling incidents that go back to Exod. 15:22–27).

Technically, the wilderness period began immediately after the crossing of the Red Sea. The Israelites passed through the Desert of Shur, the Desert of Sin, Rephidim, and then Sinai itself. These locations, however, were only stations on the way to Sinai, and so they do not pertain to the specific forty-year period of punishment, which begins in Num. 14. Their wandering period would not be officially over until they crossed the Jordan River and entered Canaan (Josh. 3:17).

Mapping the Route

The wilderness wandering, like the exodus and the passage through the Red Sea, are very difficult to outline precisely from a geographical and archaeological point of view. Many of the places named in the lists have not been located. Moreover, the two itinerary lists, one in Num. 33 and the other at various points in Num. 11–22, do not agree on every point. Although the two lists do not directly conflict, Num. 33 includes many more sites than Num. 11–22 and leaves out relatively few. One reason for this difference may be that only Num. 33 is actually intended to be an itinerary, whereas the sites mentioned elsewhere in Numbers are injected in the course of a narrative.

What contributes to difficulties in locating the wilderness route is that biblical names are not those used today, not to mention that many of these places no longer exist at all. Moreover, similarities between some names then and now have no necessary bearing on the issue. Also, it seems that at least some of the biblical names are symbolic. For example, “Meribah” means “quarreling,” and “Massah” means “testing.” These names seem to reflect the events recorded in Exod. 17 rather than being original names.

One of the most contested issues concerning the wilderness wandering is where it began: the location of Mount Sinai. It is commonly accepted that this mountain is located somewhere in the Sinai Peninsula, although numerous places have been suggested. Best known, perhaps, is Jebel Musa, the location of St. Catherine’s monastery, located in the southern portion of the peninsula. This is based not so much on historical evidence, however, as on church tradition. Another theory puts Mount Sinai in the eastern portion of the peninsula, near Midian. One factor in favor of this theory is that Moses first met God on Mount Sinai when he was living in Midian (with Zipporah, his wife, and Jethro, his father-in-law). According to Exod. 3:1, Moses left Jethro’s house to tend his sheep and it was on this journey that he came to Mount Sinai for the first time. Unless one presumes that he herded the sheep over one hundred miles in a southwesterly direction, into the desert, one might conclude that Mount Sinai is perhaps a more reasonable distance from Midian. But as with all theories regarding Sinai’s location, conclusive evidence is lacking.

Reminder of Rebellion and Its Consequences

Interest in the wilderness wanderings, however, extends beyond understanding ancient geography. There is also a powerful theological dimension, and this seems to be of greater importance for biblical writers. Wandering in the wilderness is Israel’s punishment for disobedience and rebellion. As such, it stands as a reminder for later Israelites to encourage them not to repeat that mistake. Indeed, the events of Numbers are not recounted merely to catalog arcane events but are preserved in writing to be a reminder for subsequent generations.

Israel’s wilderness experience is referenced in various portions of the OT. The rebellion is mentioned in Ps. 106:14, 26, and wilderness is associated with a place of death. Elsewhere the desert represents a place of God’s protection and provision for the new generation of Israelites living in the desert (Deut. 8:15–16; 29:5; 32:10; Ps. 136:16; Hos. 13:5).

Another example of a later appropriation of the wilderness tradition is found in Ps. 95, where the Israelites, perhaps in an exilic setting, are warned not to rebel as the exodus generation did (vv. 7–11). This same warning of Ps. 95 is picked up by the writer of Hebrews and applied to the church (Heb. 3:1–4:13). The author argues that since a greater mediator than Moses has come, the past warning holds all the more as the church goes through its period of wilderness wandering (which lasts until the church’s entrance into its heavenly promised land). The main difference Hebrews introduces is that the church’s period of wilderness wandering is not characterized by God’s wrath but rather is a time of God’s activity in redeeming the world.