“Abomination” is a translation of the Hebrew words shiqquts and to’ebah used primarily in the KJV (NIV uses terms such as “detestable,” “desecrated,” and “unclean”). The term shiqquts is used of idols (e.g., 2 Kings 23:13, 24; Jer. 7:30; cf. Ezek. 8:10), forbidden practices (e.g., 2 Kings 23:24), and generally anything contrary to the true worship of Israel’s God (e.g., 2 Chron. 15:8; Isa. 66:3; Jer. 4:1; cf. forbidden foods [Lev. 11:10, 13, 42] and ceremonial defilement [Lev. 7:21]). The term to’ebah includes the prohibition of idol worship (Deut. 7:25; 27:15; 32:16) but can more widely apply to immorality (e.g., Lev. 18:22, 26–27), prophecy that leads to paganism (Deut. 13:13–14), blemished animals offered in sacrifice to Yahweh (Deut. 17:1), and heathen divination (Deut. 18:9, 12).

The “abomination of desolation” (NIV: “abomination that causes desolation), or “desolating sacrifice,” refers to the desecration of the Jerusalem temple. The description occurs or is alluded to in Dan. 8:11; 9:27; 11:31; 12:11; Matt. 24:15; Mark 13:14; Luke 21:20; 2 Thess. 2:4; as well as 1 Macc. 1:54–64. These texts seem to attest to two or three stages of fulfillment of the prophecy.

First, Dan. 8:11; 9:27; 11:31; 12:11; and 1 Macc. 1:54–64 clearly speak of the actions of the Syrian ruler Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 BC) against the Jerusalem temple in 167 BC. He was the younger son of Antiochus III, ruler of the Seleucid Empire. The name “Epiphanes” means “manifest,” implying “manifest as a god.” Antiochus’s ambition was to use the common culture of the Greeks (Hellenism) to unite the diverse Seleucid Empire. In 167 BC, after being repelled from Egypt by the Romans, Antiochus unleashed his fury on Jerusalem. His soldiers attacked the city on the Sabbath, killing much of the male population and enslaving the remaining women and children (1 Macc. 1:29–36; 2 Macc. 5:24–26). There followed the prohibition of all Jewish rites, along with the rededication of the Jewish temple to the Greek god Zeus. Anyone caught reading the Torah, observing the Sabbath and dietary laws, or circumcising their male babies was killed (1 Macc. 1:54–64; Josephus, Ant. 12.248–64). In December of 167 BC the first pagan sacrifice was offered on the altar in the holy of holies in the Jerusalem temple (1 Macc. 1:54).

Antiochus at first met pockets of resistance from faithful Jews who opposed his orders and were therefore martyred (2 Macc. 6:10–7:42). With Mattathias and his five sons, however, open defiance against Antiochus’s policies ensued. Mattathias, a priest in the town of Modein, refused to sacrifice to heathen gods and killed the king’s officer sent to enforce the edict. This incident sparked a Jewish rebellion led by Mattathias’s family (the Maccabees) that culminated in his son Judas’s defeat of Antiochus’s forces in December of 164 BC. At that time Judas reconsecrated the temple to Yahweh, the God of Israel, and Israel resumed the observance of the Jewish law (1 Macc. 4:52–59). Not long thereafter, Antiochus, who had unsuccessfully tried to invade Persia, died of illness in 164 BC (1 Macc. 6:1–17; 2 Macc. 1:13–17; 9:1–29; Josephus, Ant. 12.354–59). Thus, the prophecies of Dan. 8:11; 9:27; 11:31; 12:11 regarding the rise and fall of Antiochus Epiphanes had come true.

Second, Daniel’s prophecy apparently was not completely fulfilled with Antiochus, for Luke 21:20 labels the Roman assault on Jerusalem in AD 70 as the “desolation.” In fact, the Roman destruction of the Holy City and its temple was an intensification of the OT prediction.

Third, some interpreters would extend the application of the prophecy of the abomination of desolation to the distant future. They contend that the ultimate fulfillment of Daniel’s prediction will occur in connection with the end-time temple to be built by Israel, which the antichrist will desecrate. Supporters of this viewpoint appeal to Mark 13:14; Matt. 24:15; 2 Thess. 2:4 (cf. Rev. 11).

Those who identify only two stages of fulfillment for Daniel’s prophecy understand Mark 13:14 and Matt. 24:15 to pertain not to a future end-time temple but to the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 (cf. Luke 21:20). Furthermore, they see in 2 Thess. 2:4 an allusion to the emperor Ca­lig­ula’s (Gaius) plan to place a statue of himself in the Jerusalem temple in AD 40 (which, because of his assassination, did not occur).

“Abomination” is a translation of the Hebrew words shiqquts and to’ebah used primarily in the KJV (NIV uses terms such as “detestable,” “desecrated,” and “unclean”). The term shiqquts is used of idols (e.g., 2 Kings 23:13, 24; Jer. 7:30; cf. Ezek. 8:10), forbidden practices (e.g., 2 Kings 23:24), and generally anything contrary to the true worship of Israel’s God (e.g., 2 Chron. 15:8; Isa. 66:3; Jer. 4:1; cf. forbidden foods [Lev. 11:10, 13, 42] and ceremonial defilement [Lev. 7:21]). The term to’ebah includes the prohibition of idol worship (Deut. 7:25; 27:15; 32:16) but can more widely apply to immorality (e.g., Lev. 18:22, 26–27), prophecy that leads to paganism (Deut. 13:13–14), blemished animals offered in sacrifice to Yahweh (Deut. 17:1), and heathen divination (Deut. 18:9, 12).

The “abomination of desolation” (NIV: “abomination that causes desolation), or “desolating sacrifice,” refers to the desecration of the Jerusalem temple. The description occurs or is alluded to in Dan. 8:11; 9:27; 11:31; 12:11; Matt. 24:15; Mark 13:14; Luke 21:20; 2 Thess. 2:4; as well as 1 Macc. 1:54–64. These texts seem to attest to two or three stages of fulfillment of the prophecy.

First, Dan. 8:11; 9:27; 11:31; 12:11; and 1 Macc. 1:54–64 clearly speak of the actions of the Syrian ruler Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 BC) against the Jerusalem temple in 167 BC. He was the younger son of Antiochus III, ruler of the Seleucid Empire. The name “Epiphanes” means “manifest,” implying “manifest as a god.” Antiochus’s ambition was to use the common culture of the Greeks (Hellenism) to unite the diverse Seleucid Empire. In 167 BC, after being repelled from Egypt by the Romans, Antiochus unleashed his fury on Jerusalem. His soldiers attacked the city on the Sabbath, killing much of the male population and enslaving the remaining women and children (1 Macc. 1:29–36; 2 Macc. 5:24–26). There followed the prohibition of all Jewish rites, along with the rededication of the Jewish temple to the Greek god Zeus. Anyone caught reading the Torah, observing the Sabbath and dietary laws, or circumcising their male babies was killed (1 Macc. 1:54–64; Josephus, Ant. 12.248–64). In December of 167 BC the first pagan sacrifice was offered on the altar in the holy of holies in the Jerusalem temple (1 Macc. 1:54).

Antiochus at first met pockets of resistance from faithful Jews who opposed his orders and were therefore martyred (2 Macc. 6:10–7:42). With Mattathias and his five sons, however, open defiance against Antiochus’s policies ensued. Mattathias, a priest in the town of Modein, refused to sacrifice to heathen gods and killed the king’s officer sent to enforce the edict. This incident sparked a Jewish rebellion led by Mattathias’s family (the Maccabees) that culminated in his son Judas’s defeat of Antiochus’s forces in December of 164 BC. At that time Judas reconsecrated the temple to Yahweh, the God of Israel, and Israel resumed the observance of the Jewish law (1 Macc. 4:52–59). Not long thereafter, Antiochus, who had unsuccessfully tried to invade Persia, died of illness in 164 BC (1 Macc. 6:1–17; 2 Macc. 1:13–17; 9:1–29; Josephus, Ant. 12.354–59). Thus, the prophecies of Dan. 8:11; 9:27; 11:31; 12:11 regarding the rise and fall of Antiochus Epiphanes had come true.

Second, Daniel’s prophecy apparently was not completely fulfilled with Antiochus, for Luke 21:20 labels the Roman assault on Jerusalem in AD 70 as the “desolation.” In fact, the Roman destruction of the Holy City and its temple was an intensification of the OT prediction.

Third, some interpreters would extend the application of the prophecy of the abomination of desolation to the distant future. They contend that the ultimate fulfillment of Daniel’s prediction will occur in connection with the end-time temple to be built by Israel, which the antichrist will desecrate. Supporters of this viewpoint appeal to Mark 13:14; Matt. 24:15; 2 Thess. 2:4 (cf. Rev. 11).

Those who identify only two stages of fulfillment for Daniel’s prophecy understand Mark 13:14 and Matt. 24:15 to pertain not to a future end-time temple but to the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 (cf. Luke 21:20). Furthermore, they see in 2 Thess. 2:4 an allusion to the emperor Ca­lig­ula’s (Gaius) plan to place a statue of himself in the Jerusalem temple in AD 40 (which, because of his assassination, did not occur).

The book of Daniel contains gripping stories and complex visions of the end of history. While the former are easy to follow and provide clear moral lessons to readers, the latter are quite difficult to interpret. Set in a time when the people of God were living under the thumb of powerful pagan nations, the purpose of the book is to provide comfort and hope in the knowledge that God is in control and, in spite of present difficulties, will provide victory for his people.

Historical Background

Authorship and date. The book does not name an author. The first six chapters are stories about Daniel in a foreign court, and the last six chapters narrate four visions received by Daniel.

The traditional view holds that the events described in the book took place in the period 605–537 BC, and that the book, no matter when it was written, faithfully reflects actual events and the visions that Daniel received. Although the book nowhere insists that he is the author, it is possible, if not likely, that we are to think of Daniel as the author of at least the visions. Indeed, in 12:4 the angel tells him, “Roll up and seal the words of the scroll.” Daniel himself or a later inspired author could have given the book in its final form.

However, some scholars reject the idea that the book accurately reflects events of the period in question. They point to historical problems such as questions concerning the identity of Darius the Mede as well as the specificity of the prophecies particularly and argue that the book must have been written by an anonymous person after the predicted events. Indeed, they point to what they believe is an actual prophecy at the end of the book (11:40–45) that did not take place to suggest that the book was written in the mid-160s BC.

Those who believe that God could provide Daniel with a glimpse of the future do not have a problem with the precision of the description of future events. Further, 11:40–45 may be a picture of the antichrist in the far-distant future. It seems best to side with the traditional understanding of the book of Daniel as having been written early and reflecting an accurate depiction of Daniel’s life.

Ancient Near Eastern historical context. The book of Daniel begins with a Babylonian siege of Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, dated to 605 BC. Nebuchadnezzar, who according to Babylonian sources had just become king of Babylon, demands tokens of Judean submission: vessels from the temple and hostages from the royal family and nobility, including Daniel and three friends. Since 626 BC the Babylonians have been on the uprise, displacing Assyria as the superpower of the day. The action of Dan. 1–4 takes place in Babylon during the reign of the powerful empire builder Nebuchadnezzar. Daniel lives longer than the king, and Dan. 5 is set during the rule of a man named “Belshazzar.” The story concerns the end of the Babylonian Empire, and it was initially puzzling that Babylonian sources rediscovered beginning in the nineteenth century AD named Nabonidus as the last king of Babylon rather than Belshazzar. However, texts discovered more recently have resolved the problem, demonstrating that Belshazzar (known in the Babylonian texts as Bel-shar-usur) was the son of Nabonidus and his coregent: Belshazzar ruled in the city of Babylon while Nabonidus ruled from an oasis (Teima) in what is today Saudi Arabia. The visions recorded in Dan. 7–8 are dated to the time of this Belshazzar.

Daniel even survived the fall of the Babylonian Empire and found a place of importance in the Persian Empire (Dan. 6), which succeeded it. The first ruler of this Persian Empire was Cyrus, though Dan. 6 speaks of a king named “Darius.” Some believe this is a historical mistake because there was a King Darius who ruled some years after Cyrus, but it is likely that “Darius” is either another name for Cyrus or perhaps a subruler in charge of Babylon. The visions found in Dan. 9–12 are dated to the time of Darius/Cyrus.

Daniel almost certainly died during the reign of Darius/Cyrus, but his prophetic vision extended beyond even the Persian Empire, which ended with the conquest by the Greek Alexander the Great in 333 BC.

Text. An interesting feature of the original text of Daniel is that it is written in two languages. Daniel 1:1–2:4a; 8:1–12:13 is in Hebrew, while Dan. 2:4b–7:28 is in Aramaic. This extensive use of two languages is unique in a single biblical book. Although the Aramaic begins when the text announces that the astrologers answered the king in Aramaic, no persuasive reason has been offered for why the text continues in Aramaic until the end of chapter 7.

The evidence from the eight partial and fragmentary manuscripts of Daniel from the DSS supports the antiquity and authenticity of the text that is used to translate the book into modern languages, including English. It also supports the use of two languages in the book.

Early Greek versions of Daniel have additions that are found in modern Bibles that include the Apocrypha. The first of these is the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Young Men, which is found after Dan. 3:23. The story of Susanna appears in some Greek manuscripts before Dan. 1 and in others after Dan. 12. Bel and the Dragon concludes the book.

Literary Considerations and Outline

There are two major parts of the book. The first half (Dan. 1–6) is composed of six stories of Daniel in a foreign court, and the second half (Dan. 7–12) is composed of four apocalyptic visions. A more detailed outline of the book is as follows:

I. Daniel in a Foreign Court (1:1–6:28)

A. Daniel and his friends in the Babylonian court (1:1–21)

B. God’s wisdom versus Babylonian wisdom (2:1–49)

C. God saves the three friends from the fiery furnace (3:1–30)

D. Nebuchadnezzar’s pride takes a fall (4:1–37)

E. Writing on the wall (5:1–31)

F. Daniel in the lions’ den (6:1–28)

II. Four Visions (7:1–12:13)

A. The four beasts and the one like a son of man (7:1–28)

B. The ram and the goat (8:1–27)

C. The seventy weeks (9:1–27)

D. The scope and end of history (10:1–12:13)

The stories of the first six chapters may be identified as court narratives that focus on Daniel and the three friends and their interactions with the rulers. Such interaction often brings them into conflict with the Babylonian wise men and other officials. Of course, Daniel and his friends are successful in the various court contests and conflicts because their God is with them.

The visions of the last six chapters have been called “apocalyptic.” Apocalyptic literature has a distinct form from even the type of prophecy that we read in a book such as Jeremiah (see Apocalyptic). In Jeremiah, God gives a message to the prophet, who is told to communicate with the people so that they might change their behavior and thus avoid punishment. God never speaks to Daniel. He has a vision, and an angel interprets the vision for him. He is told not to preach the message of the vision. The purpose of such visions is not to elicit repentance but rather to assure God’s faithful people that, although they are presently being oppressed, God is with them and will win the victory in the end.

Apocalyptic literature features an intense use of striking images. Beasts arise out of a sea, a humanlike figure rides a cloud chariot, and a goat butts heads with a ram. Although this imagery strikes modern readers as odd, it communicated clearly to its ancient audience, which knew that the sea and its monsters represented evil and chaos, the cloud rider was God on his storm chariot, and the ram represented Persia and the goat Greece.

Theological Message

Though varied in genre with six stories and four visions, the basic message of the book of Daniel is clear and repeated in each: in spite of present difficulties, God is in control and will have the victory. The book intends to instill in its readers a sense of calmness in the midst of crisis: although persecuted and/or living in a culture toxic to their faith, not only can they survive but they can thrive.

Daniel 1 illustrates this theme among the stories. Young Daniel and his friends are forced to go into exile in Babylon. Though faithful, they are subjected to the pagan curriculum of the court to become wise men. Such study would have included astrology and other forms of divination. Furthermore, they are required to eat a diet that will assure that they become robust. But by refusing to eat the rich food prescribed by the king and consuming only vegetables and water, they give God room to work. Thus, when later they are proclaimed to be “better nourished” than those who eat the king’s diet, they know that it is not because of the king’s diet but because of God. They are also more learned than others in the court. Daniel 2 demonstrates how their exceptional wisdom is not the result of their Babylonian education, but because of God’s wisdom. So in spite of their present situation, they not only survive but also thrive, as evidenced by their promotions in the king’s court.

Daniel 7 illustrates this important theme among the apocalyptic visions. The vision begins with the description of hybrid beasts that arise from the sea. They are evil kingdoms that oppress the people of God. However, the vision looks beyond the present to the arrival of the “one like a son of man” on his cloud chariot, who will lead the saints of the Most High God in a victorious battle against these forces of evil.

New Testament Connections

Daniel’s visions look to the far future when God will appear and bring history to a close with a tremendous victory over the forces of evil. Not surprisingly, Daniel’s imagery permeates the apocalyptic materials in the NT that speak of the second coming of Jesus Christ. For instance, in the book of Revelation evil is imaged as a sea monster (Rev. 13) that reminds the reader of the four sea beasts of Dan. 7. Jesus, the one who defeats this epitome of evil, is called “Son of Man” in the NT and is pictured as appearing on a cloud at the end of time (Matt. 24:30; Mark 13:26; Luke 21:27; cf. Rev. 1:7).

The phrase “book of life” occurs eight times in the Bible (Ps. 69:28; Phil. 4:3; Rev. 3:5; 13:8; 17:8; 20:12, 15; 21:27). The image may originate from the practice of keeping genealogical records or a registry of citizens in which the names of individuals were recorded. Some have suggested that it is a figurative record of all the living, from which the unsaved are eventually erased. But more likely the phrase metaphorically expresses the omniscience of God, who knows all those whom he has predestined to eternal life. In Ps. 69:28 being “blotted out” of the Book of Life probably refers to the fate of experiencing a premature earthly death (cf. Exod. 32:32–33). But since it applies to God’s enemies, it also carries with it the overtones of eternal damnation. The promise made to those who overcome that they will not be blotted out of the Book of Life assures them of their final victory (Rev. 3:5; cf. John 5:24–25). At the final judgment, those not found written in the Book of Life are destined to eternal separation from God in the lake of fire (Rev. 20:12–15). The final use of the phrase in “the Lamb’s book of life” indicates that the record belongs to Christ, who purchased the redemption of all those found recorded in the book (Rev. 21:27). For similar phrases and concepts, see Pss. 9:5; 51:1; 139:16; Isa. 4:3; Dan. 7:10; 12:1; Mal. 3:16; Luke 10:20; Heb. 12:23.

(1) A Jewish prophet in the Babylonian exile, best known from the book that bears his name. In 605 BC, Nebuchadnezzar, who that year had succeeded his father, Nabopolassar, as king of the resurgent empire of Babylon, pressed Jerusalem and its king, Jehoiakim (609–597 BC). Jehoiakim was forced to submit and turn over to the Babylonians the temple vessels and some young men from the royal family (Dan. 1:1–5). The latter included Daniel and three of his friends, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah.

Daniel 1 recounts their initial experience in the Babylonian court. Nebuchadnezzar, in keeping with ancient Near Eastern practice, wanted to reprogram these young future leaders to Babylonian ways. In this way he could either send them back to leadership positions in Judah, where they would be servants faithful to Babylon, or, as happens with the three friends, keep them in the center of the empire to support the efforts of a growing imperial system. As part of the reprogramming effort, their names were changed from names that glorified Israel’s God to names that celebrated Babylonian deities. “Daniel” means “God is my judge,” while his new name, “Bel-teshazzar,” means something like “the divine lady protects the king.” Even more tellingly, Nebuchadnezzar put them on a dietary and educational track that would transform them into Babylonian sympathizers. The education was in the “language and literature of the Babylonians” (1:4), which would have focused on divination texts like those that interpret the stars or dreams. Interestingly, Daniel and the three friends were at the top of their class at the end of the chapter (1:19). He also placed them on a diet of rich food and wine to ensure that they would be robust and good-looking. However, the four young men refused and secretly ate only vegetables and drank water. This latter diet should have left them looking thin, but after ten days they looked healthier and better nourished than those young men who were on the king’s diet (1:15). Here we know for sure that their good looks are the result not of the king’s diet, but of God’s blessing.

The next five chapters continue to describe Daniel’s life in a foreign court. He developed a close relationship with King Nebuchadnezzar, who came to respect Daniel for his virtue and wisdom. Indeed, Daniel’s actions led the king to express respect for Daniel’s God on more than one occasion (2:47; 4:34–35). Nebuchadnezzar died in 562 BC, and while the text is clear that Daniel continued to operate during the reigns of his successors, it gives us only stories set in the reign of the last Babylonian king, Belshazzar, and the first years of the Persian Empire (Cyrus/Darius the Mede). Daniel had a good relationship with Darius, who only reluctantly threw him into the lions’ den (Dan. 6) and was greatly relieved that he survived, but there was no respect or love for Belshazzar, whose kingdom Daniel denounced when he read the handwriting on the wall.

Daniel was also the recipient of four major visions (Dan. 7–12) that anticipated future events, even to the end of time. Daniel’s reputation spread quickly. He is mentioned by his near contemporary Ezekiel as comparable to the ancient worthies Noah and Job (Ezek. 14:14, 20).

(2) The second son of David, born while he was king of Judah in Hebron. His mother was Abigail of Carmel (1 Chron. 3:1). In 2 Sam. 3:3, he is called Kileab (or Chileab).

(3) A descendant of Ithamar, the priest, who returned with Ezra to Jerusalem (Ezra 8:2). He is likely the same Daniel as the man who sealed the covenant at the time of Ezra and Nehemiah (Neh. 10:6).

The primary term in Hebrew is ’apar (“loose earth, dust”), which is related to the Hebrew terms for cultivatable “soil” (’adamah [Gen. 3:19]) and “earth” (’erets [Gen. 13:16]). These terms are semantically close enough to be used interchangeably (cf. 1 Sam. 4:12; 2 Sam. 1:2 with Josh. 7:6; Ezek. 27:30).

In the OT, the imagery of dust is used to illustrate notions of quantity and abundance (Num. 23:10; 2 Chron. 1:9; Job 27:16; Ps. 78:27; Isa. 40:12; Zech. 9:3). This stock of imagery is applied to annihilation (2 Sam. 22:43), worthlessness (Zeph. 1:17), humiliation (Isa. 25:12), and mourning (Isa. 2:10; Rev. 18:19). In the OT, ’apar alone is used figuratively over sixty times to refer to judgment. Thus, “to lick the dust” (Ps. 72:9) is a sign of subjugation. The opposite is “to shake off the dust,” a sign of repudiation (Isa. 52:2; Matt. 10:14; Mark 6:11; Luke 9:5; 10:11; Acts 13:51). It is this figurative use of “dust” that facilitates the theological use of ’apar. Yahweh acts to humiliate, debase, destroy, and “cast down” into the dust (Isa. 25:12); and he also restores, “lifting up” to remove the shame (1 Kings 16:2; Ps. 113:7).

The significance of ’apar is powerfully portrayed in the creation of humans. Whereas animals are made from the “earth,” humankind emerges from more refined material, the dust (’apar [Gen. 2:7]). In an etymological pun, the “human” (’adam) rises from the “humus” (’adamah; cf. Ps. 103:14; Job 4:19). Death comes when God withdraws the human’s “breath of life” (cf. Gen. 2:7), causing the groundling to collapse back to the ground like “crushed dust” (cf. Pss. 90:3; 104:29; 146:4). Human life is fragile, dependent, and transitory. This is the teacher’s argument and also the reason that he stresses death as the inevitable end of both human and animal life (Eccles. 3:18–20). However, Daniel knows that “multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake” (Dan. 12:2).

Life is a complex, multifaceted concept in the Bible. Various Hebrew and Greek terms convey the idea of life. Life is described in both a natural and a theological sense.

Life in the Natural Sense

In its natural sense, “life” may convey the following: (1) the vital principle of animals and humans, (2) the length of time that one has life, (3) the complete plot and cast of characters of an individual’s lifetime, or (4) the means for maintaining life.

First, life is the vital principle of animals and humans. This use of the term is its popular sense. It refers to the quality of having an animate existence or the state of being animate. Therefore, it is expressed in terms of ability or power; one who has life has the power to act. On the other hand, “death” is its antonym; one who is dead no longer acts. In the Bible, life in this sense applies to both animals and humans; however, the quality of life differs because humans are made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26; 5:1; 9:6). Life is manifested in the breath of life, so that one who no longer has the breath of life no longer has life (Gen. 2:7; 6:17; Job 12:10; 27:3; Rev. 11:11). At the same time, life is seated in the blood. For this reason, blood should not be consumed but should instead be poured out and buried (Gen. 9:3–5; Lev. 17:10–16; Deut. 12:23–25). Although life may cease because of physical causes (whether disease, murder, accident, etc.), God is ultimately the Lord of life. He gives life through his breath of life (Gen. 2:7; Ezek. 37:4–14); he sustains life through his spirit (Ps. 104:29–30; cf. Gen. 6:3; 1 Cor. 15:45); he delivers from death (Gen. 5:24; Ps. 30:3; 1 Cor. 15); he gives life and puts to death (Deut. 32:39; 1 Sam. 2:6). Life, therefore, is first and foremost a gift from God.

In a discussion of life as the vital principle, it is important to address the question of the afterlife. The Bible affirms the significance of both the material and the immaterial components of a human being. The body is not merely a shell in which the true person is housed. Death is not the soul’s escape from the body’s prison, as evidenced by the resurrection of the dead (Ezek. 37:1–14; Dan. 12:2; Luke 14:14; 1 Cor. 15). Human beings are not created to live a disembodied existence ultimately. The fate for those who experience eternal life is the resurrection of the body made from an incorruptible source (1 Cor. 15, esp. vv. 42–50). For others, their fate lies in eternal death (Matt. 25:46; Rev. 20:6–15; 21:8).

Second, in both Testaments, “life” may also refer to the duration of animate existence—one’s lifetime. The duration of one’s life in this sense begins at birth and ends at death (Gen. 23:1; 25:7; 47:9, 28; Luke 16:25; Heb. 2:15). This period of time is brief (Ps. 90:10; James 4:14). The Bible describes two ways that one’s lifetime may be extended: first, God gives additional time to a person’s life (2 Kings 20:6; Ps. 61:6; Isa. 38:5); second, one gains longer life by living wisely and honoring God (Prov. 3:2; 4:10; 9:11; 10:27).

Third, sometimes “life” refers to the complete plot and cast of characters of an individual’s lifetime. In other words, “life” may refer to all a person’s activities and relationships (1 Sam. 18:18 KJV; Job 10:1; Luke 12:15; James 4:14).

Fourth, “life” rarely may refer to the means of livelihood (Deut. 24:6; Prov. 27:27; Matt. 6:25; Luke 12:22–23). These passages highlight two aspects of life in this sense: (1) people are responsible to guard life; (2) God gives this life because of his great concern, which exceeds his care for the birds and flowers.

Life as a Theological Concept

Beyond its natural sense, life is developed as a theological concept throughout the Bible.

Old Testament. The first chapters of Genesis set the stage for a rich theological understanding of life. First, God creates all things and prepares them for his purposes. He is the creator of life, and life is a gift from his hand. The pinnacle of his creative activity is the creation of humankind. God blesses the man (Adam) and the woman (Eve) whom he creates. God prepares a special place, a garden, for them, so that they may be able to live in perfect communion with him, under his blessing. At the center of the garden lies the tree of life. The tree of life demonstrates that the garden is both the sphere of God’s provision and the symbol of life itself. At the same time, God commands the man not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, “for when you eat from it you will certainly die” (Gen. 2:17).

At this point, life and death take center stage. What follows in the narrative (Gen. 3) is a presentation of the meaning of life and death as theological concepts. Adam and Eve disobey the divine commandment. As a result, they die. However, their death is not death in the natural sense. Instead, when they disobey God’s commandment, there are three results: (1) a curse is pronounced, (2) they are exiled from the garden away from God, and (3) they are prevented from eating from the tree of life (3:14–24). Death in this case is not ceasing to breathe and move but is curse and exile; in other words, to die is to be removed from the place of God’s presence and blessing and be placed under a curse. Life, then, is the opposite: to live is to be settled in the place of God’s presence and blessing.

It is also important to recognize in this narrative that obedience to God’s commandment leads to life, but disobedience to his commandment leads to death. This principle is picked up throughout the Bible. Its clearest expression is found in Lev. 18:5: “Keep my decrees and laws, for the person who obeys them will live by them.”

This narrative also draws an important connection taken up in other parts of the Bible, especially Proverbs: the connection between life and wisdom. In the garden there are two trees at the center: the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Although there is some question concerning what is precisely meant by the knowledge of good and evil, it is likely that wisdom is in view. Two pieces of evidence support this conclusion: (1) knowledge and wisdom as well as good and evil are central concerns for the book of Proverbs; (2) the narrative associates the tree with wisdom. When Eve considers eating from the tree, she notices that it is like the other trees in that it has a pleasant appearance and is good for food (Gen. 2:9), but it is also distinct from the other trees because it is desirable for making one wise (3:6). By eating the fruit, she and Adam attempt to gain wisdom contrary to God’s command. As a result, this type of wisdom leads to death. However, true wisdom has the opposite effect. It leads to life, being a tree of life itself (esp. Prov. 3:18; also 3:1–2; 4:10–23; 6:23).

Although these themes—life, blessing, obedience, and wisdom—are found in various places throughout the Bible, they come together most explicitly in Deuteronomy. There devotion and obedience to God are viewed as the means of attaining wisdom and understanding (Deut. 4:5–9). Following God leads to living in the land that God had promised and enjoying his blessings there (28:1–14); however, forsaking God leads to all kinds of curses and ultimately to utter defeat and exile from the land (28:15–68). The choice to follow God and obey him or to forsake God and disobey him results in either life or death, good or bad, blessing or curse (30:15–20).

Life as a theological concept therefore has the following characteristics: being in the presence of God rather than exile, and experiencing his blessings rather than his curses. Such life may be attained through devotion and obedience to God and through the wisdom that comes from God.

New Testament. This concept of life forms the background for that of the NT as well. The NT often speaks of eternal life, especially in the writings of John. Eternal life is being in fellowship with God the Father and Jesus Christ (John 17:3). One may experience eternal life before natural death and beyond it into the eternal future (John 3:36; 5:24; 6:54; 10:28). At the same time, eternal life may refer more narrowly only to the time of perfect fellowship with God that lies beyond natural life (Matt. 25:46; Mark 10:30; Rom. 2:7). Because life consists of being in fellowship with God and living in his blessings, John can state that the one who believes in Jesus “has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life” (John 5:24). In other words, the person who believes in Jesus has been transferred from God’s curse to his blessing, from death to life. Furthermore, Jesus declares that he is life, and that those who believe in him will live and not die; that is, they will never be removed from his presence and blessing (John 11:25–26).

(1) The father of Sethur, a leader of the tribe of Asher who was sent with eleven others to explore Canaan (Num. 13:13). (2) The head of a clan of the tribe of Gad (1 Chron. 5:13). (3) An ancestor of the Michael in 1 Chron. 5:13 (1 Chron. 5:14). (4) An ancestor of Asaph, a worship leader during the time of David (1 Chron. 6:40). (5) A son of Izrahiah who was a chief within the tribe of Issachar (1 Chron. 7:3). (6) A descendant of Benjamin through Beriah (1 Chron. 8:16). (7) A military leader of the tribe of Manasseh. He and his unit of one thousand men defected to David at Ziklag (1 Chron. 12:20). (8) The father of Omri, a military officer of the tribe of Issachar (1 Chron. 27:1). (9) A brother of King Jehoram of Judah whom Jehoram put to death after securing the throne (2 Chron. 21:1–4). (10) The father of Zebadiah, a man who accompanied Ezra to Jerusalem from Babylon (Ezra 8:8). (11) One of the few angelic beings whose names are identified in the Bible. Scripture refers to Michael as “one of the chief princes” (Dan. 10:13), a “great prince” (Dan. 12:1), and an “archangel” (Jude 1:9), indicating that Michael is a high-ranking leader of other angels (Rev. 12:7).

In the OT, many Hebrew words are translated as “prince,” all of which can also be rendered as, for example, “chieftain,” “captain,” “leader,” “ruler.” These words generally carry connotations of dominion, leadership, and nobility and do not necessarily indicate the direct male descendants of a sitting king or queen. Thus, Zeph. 1:8 distinguishes between princes and king’s sons. In the NT, the Greek word archōn corresponds to “prince” but is also translated as “ruler.” The same word and concept used with human authorities extend to the supernatural realm. Thus, Michael, the angelic protector of Israel in Daniel’s vision, is a “prince” (Dan. 12:1). In the Gospels, Satan is called the “prince of this world” (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11) and also the “prince of demons” (Matt. 9:34; 12:24; see also Eph. 2:2). Isaiah calls the messiah “Prince of Peace” (Isa. 9:6), and Jesus is called a “Prince and Savior” (Acts 5:31). God is called the “Prince of princes” in Dan. 8:25.

In the biblical world, documents were sealed with clay or wax (1 Kings 21:8; Job 38:14; Neh. 9:38; Jer. 32:10; Rev. 5:1). The integrity of the seal was assured by impressing an image into the soft substance, which would then harden and retain the unique image of the sender’s seal. The archaeological record attests this practice in the form of bullae (the impressions themselves, which survive long after the documents have disintegrated) as well as a large number of seals, which often were carved (Exod. 28:11; 39:6; Sir. 38:27; 45:11) into semiprecious stones or stone cylinders.

A person’s unique seal was closely identified with the owner and could be worn as a ring or pendant (see Gen. 38:18; Esther 8:8; Song 8:6). Besides documents, we have records of the sealing of caves (Matt. 27:66; cf. Dan. 6:17; 2 Macc. 2:5) and bags (Job 14:17; Tob. 9:5). In apocalyptic literature, seals are used to conceal prophecies of the future (Dan. 12:4) and to mark humans as belonging to God (Rev. 7:3–8).

In the Bible, “sleep” can refer to natural sleep (Gen. 28:11; Jon. 1:5), moral unawareness (Isa. 29:10; 1 Thess. 5:6), inattentiveness (Pss. 44:23; 121:4), and even physical death (Ps. 13:3; Dan. 12:2). Commonly the Bible speaks of deceased Christians as having “fallen asleep” (Acts 7:60; 1 Thess. 4:13–15). Proverbs warns readers strongly against indulging in too much sleep (Prov. 6:4–10; 19:15; 20:13; 24:33–34).

Old Testament and Jewish Literature

In the OT, the phrase “son of man” usually refers to humanity in general or to a specific individual. The general use of “son of man” occurs in poetic texts in which the phrase functions as a synonym for “man” or “human being” (Num. 23:19; Isa. 51:12; Pss. 144:3; 146:3). In Ps. 8:4 (ESV) the psalmist asks, “What is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him?” Echoing the creation of man in Gen. 1, “man” and “son of man” in this psalm have a royal status: being “crowned with glory and honor” and receiving dominion over all of God’s creation (Ps. 8:5–6). Later, in Ps. 80:17, “son of man” refers to the nation of Israel. The psalmist supplicates that God would make strong for himself the “son of man” over Israel’s enemies (80:12–16). In Ezekiel, God addresses the prophet himself as “son of man,” possibly indicating his human status compared with God or, alternatively, highlighting his unique status as God’s prophet in contrast with the rest of humanity.

One of the most crucial OT “son of man” texts is Dan. 7 because of its influence on the “Son of Man” in the Gospel tradition. Scholars debate the date of the composition of this chapter. While some argue for the sixth century BC, others prefer a second-century BC date during the oppressive reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The first half of the chapter records Daniel’s vision (7:1–14), while the second half contains its interpretation (7:15–27). In the vision Daniel sees “one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven” (7:13). This exalted figure contrasts with the first three beasts, which are “like a lion” (7:4), “like a bear” (7:5), and “like a leopard” (7:6). The fourth beast is so gruesome that it defies comparison with any species of the animal kingdom (7:7). Many agree that the beasts likely refer to ancient world empires; however, the referent of “one like a son of man” has given rise to much debate. The figure may refer to earthly Israel, since at this figure’s vindication he is endowed with authority and glory. This is precisely what “the holy people of the Most High” receive in v. 27. In this way, the “one like a son of man” is a symbol for the persecuted, earthly saints. Alternatively, the exalted figure could be a heavenly being such as the archangel Gabriel (Dan. 9:21) or Michael (Dan. 10:13; 12:1). Here “one like a son of man” is the heavenly counterpart and leader of suffering Israel and fights a cosmic battle on its behalf.

In subsequent Jewish literature, the “one like a son of man” from Dan. 7 becomes quite active, appearing to be a development of the static image who is “given authority, glory and sovereign power” (Dan. 7:14). In 1 En. 37–71, a text that dates from the last half of the first century BC to the first half of the first century AD, the “Son of Man” is seated upon his throne and will judge “the kings and the mighty” who have persecuted faithful Israel (46:4–8; 62:5). At that point, the faithful ones (i.e., the holy, righteous, and chosen) will be formed into a new congregation. In another Jewish text that dates from the end of the first century AD, there is a strong echo of the Danielic son of man. In 4 Ezra 13, “something like the figure of a man came up out of the heart of the sea” (v. 3a). Unlike in 1 Enoch, this figure is a warrior who destroys with fire those who attempt to wage war on him. These texts indicate that at least two traditions developed and reinterpreted the “one like a son of man” from Dan. 7. He becomes an individual who executes judgment in one tradition, and one who executes destruction in another.

New Testament

In the NT the term “Son of Man” occurs mostly in the Gospels and, with the exception of John 12:34 (where the crowd quotes Jesus), is uttered exclusively by Jesus himself. The phrase, or a variation of it, also occurs in Acts 7:56; Heb. 2:6; Rev. 1:13; 14:14. Unlike in Daniel or 1 Enoch, the epithet occurs in the Gospels with the definite article, likely indicating that the Son of Man was a known figure. Because of this and because the Son of Man in 1 Enoch and 4 Ezra have similar functions, many scholars in the mid-twentieth century speculated that in first-century Judaism many Jews believed that the Son of Man would return at the end as savior and judge. Others suggested that the significance of the phrase is found in its Aramaic background, bar ’enash’a, which in other texts means “I,” “man,” “a man,” or “someone.” Despite these alternatives, the OT provides the most helpful background for understanding the Son of Man in the Gospels.

The Son of Man sayings in the Gospels fall within three categories: earthly, suffering-resurrection, and future-vindication sayings. Starting with the earthly sayings, in Mark 2:10, for example, the Son of Man has “authority on earth to forgive sins,” and in 2:28 he exercises dominion over the Sabbath. Although in Daniel the Son of Man does not receive such authority until his appearance in Yahweh’s presence at his vindication, the Son of Man in the Gospels exercises such authority during his earthly ministry. Jesus also predicts that the Son of Man will suffer, die, and be raised again. In Mark, these suffering-resurrection predictions occur three times (8:31; 9:31; 10:33–34). Echoing Dan. 7, this plight of Jesus recalls the suffering of the holy ones caused by the little horn (v. 21). If the “one like a son of man” represents the holy ones in their vindication, then it is reasonable that he does so in their suffering as well; however, the text of Daniel is silent on this point. Finally, the clearest reference to Dan. 7 occurs in the future-vindication sayings. In Mark 13:26; 14:62 the Son of Man comes with/on the clouds, which points to his vindication over the Sanhedrin, the dominant adversaries of Jesus in Mark. Matthew appears to develop even more than Mark the judicial responsibilities of the Son of Man (Matt. 13:41–43; 25:31–33). Meanwhile, in Luke the church must stay alert and be prepared for the return of the Son of Man (Luke 12:39–40; 17:22–37; 21:34–36).

In Acts, the vision that Stephen witnesses confirms that the Son of Man has indeed been exalted to the right hand of God (Acts 7:56). In the Gospel of John, the epithet is used as the object of the verbs “to lift up” and “to glorify,” so that the death of Jesus is a form of exaltation (John 8:28; 12:23; 13:31), which reflects his current exalted status in early Christian thinking. Finally, the Son of Man in Revelation is in the heavenly temple functioning as both judge and caretaker of the seven churches (Rev. 1:12–20) and reaps the saints while “seated on the cloud” (14:14–16).

The obligations of relationships within ancient societies and between social groups were frequently reinforced by means of oaths, and the practice of oath making (by both God and people) is witnessed to in the pages of the Bible. The name of God was frequently invoked (Judg. 8:19; 2 Kings 2:2), but oaths were not to be made using the names of foreign deities (Ps. 16:4). For this reason, when an oath was broken, God’s name was profaned (Lev. 19:12). To take an oath was to ask God to witness what was promised, and it invited him to act as avenger if the promise was broken (Gen. 31:50; 1 Sam. 12:3). This made oath taking a religious act, and so oaths often were made at sanctuaries and under the supervision of cultic officials (Num. 5:11–31; Judg. 11:11; Hos. 4:15).

The words of an oath were accompanied by various gestures, such as putting a hand “under the thigh” (near the genitals?) (Gen. 24:2; 47:29) or raising the right hand to heaven (Gen. 14:22; Deut. 32:40; Rev. 10:5–6). Daniel 12:7 depicts a particularly solemn oath, involving the raising of both hands. By invoking God’s name, an oath invited God to punish the oath breaker, as in Ruth 1:17: “May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely” (for similar wording, see 1 Sam. 3:17; 14:44; 2 Sam. 3:9). Such a self-maledictory oath may have been accompanied by the gesture of a hand at the throat, signifying the death penalty for infringement. People brought a curse upon themselves if an oath was broken (e.g., Num. 5:22), either for doing what was wrong (Num. 5:22; 1 Sam. 19:6) or for not speaking the truth (e.g., Mark 14:71). Two Hebrew words are used in respect to oaths; the stronger one can actually mean a “curse.” The more common word for swearing may relate to the number seven, due to the ceremonies that could accompany oath making. For example, Abraham set aside seven ewe lambs (Gen. 21:22–31).

In the Bible, God is portrayed as binding himself by oaths, most notably his sworn promises to Abraham (Gen. 22:16–18; 50:24). This fact is used by the author of Hebrews in an argument designed to assure readers that God meant what he said when he made promises to his people (Heb. 6:13–18). The coming of Jesus fulfilled the terms of that oath (Luke 1:73). So too the Davidic covenant was supported by a divine oath (Pss. 89:35, 49; 110:4; 132:11), and this was fulfilled by the enthronement of Christ at his resurrection and ascension (Acts 2:30–33).

Jesus’ teaching on oaths (Matt. 5:33–37) does not necessarily contradict OT legislation (cf. Lev. 19:12; Num. 30:2; Deut. 23:21–23) but rather brings out the true heart of God behind the legislation. Oaths are unnecessary, Jesus said, for those who habitually tell the truth. An emphatic yes or no is all that is needed. The teaching of James 5:12 reflects what is found in Jesus’ teaching on this subject. This may not outlaw all oath taking, and certainly the apostle Paul did not understand there to be a blanket prohibition of oaths, for in his letters he is on record as making oaths (Gal. 1:20; Phil. 1:8).

The NT conception of tribulation is perhaps best summarized in Paul’s pastoral reminder, “We must go through many hardships to enter the kingdom of God” (Acts 14:22). The Greek term used here for “hardship” is thlipsis.

In the NT, thlipsis may refer generally to the sufferings and afflictions that occur in the normal course of human living (John 16:21; Acts 7:11; 1 Cor. 7:28; James 1:27). In its more common and specific usage, “tribulation” relates directly to the experience of the people of God as a consequence of their faithful proclamation of the gospel. Thus, in the parable of the sower, “tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word” (Matt. 13:21; Mark 4:17 ESV).

One of the primary aspects of the biblical view of tribulation relates to the tribulation and suffering of Christ as the pattern for the church (Rev. 1:9). That his followers would suffer tribulation was made explicit by Jesus to his followers in the Farewell Discourse (John 14–17). There he informs them, “In the world you will have tribulation” (John 16:33 ESV).

Closely related to the impending tribulation that confronts all believers is the NT affirmation that the sufferings of Christ serve as the model for the tribulation of the people of God. Jesus thus warns the disciples, “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first” (John 15:18; cf. 15:20). Paul continues this concept in Col. 1:24 (cf. 2 Cor. 1:5; 4:10–12; Phil. 3:10; 1 Pet. 4:13). The tribulation that the people of God experience serves to equip them in a variety of ways. Most significantly, tribulation results in the transformation of the people of God into the likeness of Christ (Rom. 5:3–5; 2 Cor. 4:8–12).

The book of Acts records the fulfillment of Jesus’ warning to his followers: it was because of persecution that the church was scattered (Acts 8:1). Later, Paul notes that he has experienced tribulation (2 Cor. 1:8), as did the church in Thessalonica (1 Thess. 1:6) and the recipients of Hebrews (Heb. 10:33). The reality of “tribulation” is seen in the exhortation of John to the church in Smyrna (Rev. 2:9).

Another important aspect of the tribulations that await the people of God in the NT era is the relationship of tribulation to the kingdom of God (cf. Matt. 24:9–14; Rev. 1:9; 7:14). Many hold to the notion that there will be an intensification of tribulation immediately prior to the return of Christ (Matt. 24:31; Mark 13:24).

The “great tribulation” of Rev. 7:14 has been interpreted in a variety of ways. Some understand this as a future event limited to seven or three and one-half years. Many others, however, associate this event with the tribulation, suffering, and affliction of the people of God throughout the entire era from the resurrection to the second coming. The expression “great tribulation” alludes to Dan. 12:1. The Danielic context incorporates a time of persecution and suffering among the people of God. The use of “tribulation” in Revelation (Rev. 1:9; 2:9–10, 22; 7:14) corresponds with the persecution of the people of God. A comparison with Matt. 24:21 confirms this conclusion. Therefore, regardless of how one reads the “great tribulation” in Rev. 7:14, as present or future reality, it appears that this tribulation refers to the suffering of God’s people and not to an exemption from it (cf. John 17:15).

Antiochus IV Epiphanes (r. 175–164 BC) was the younger son of Antiochus III, ruler of the Seleucid Empire. The name “Epiphanes” means “manifest,” implying “manifest as a god.” Daniel 8:11; 9:27; 11:31; 12:11; 1 Macc. 1:54–64 speak of his desecration of the Jerusalem temple in 167 BC. Antiochus profaned the holy of holies by placing in it a statue of Zeus and then sacrificing a pig to Zeus on the altar. Daniel 9:27, however, promises that the defiler of the temple (Antiochus) will be defeated, which occurred in 164 BC when Judas Maccabeus led the Jewish revolt that expelled the forces of Antiochus from Jerusalem (see 1 Macc. 4:36–61; cf. 6:1–17).

Antiochus IV Epiphanes (r. 175–164 BC) was the younger son of Antiochus III, ruler of the Seleucid Empire. The name “Epiphanes” means “manifest,” implying “manifest as a god.” Daniel 8:11; 9:27; 11:31; 12:11; 1 Macc. 1:54–64 speak of his desecration of the Jerusalem temple in 167 BC. Antiochus profaned the holy of holies by placing in it a statue of Zeus and then sacrificing a pig to Zeus on the altar. Daniel 9:27, however, promises that the defiler of the temple (Antiochus) will be defeated, which occurred in 164 BC when Judas Maccabeus led the Jewish revolt that expelled the forces of Antiochus from Jerusalem (see 1 Macc. 4:36–61; cf. 6:1–17).

Antiochus IV Epiphanes (r. 175–164 BC) was the younger son of Antiochus III, ruler of the Seleucid Empire. The name “Epiphanes” means “manifest,” implying “manifest as a god.” Daniel 8:11; 9:27; 11:31; 12:11; 1 Macc. 1:54–64 speak of his desecration of the Jerusalem temple in 167 BC. Antiochus profaned the holy of holies by placing in it a statue of Zeus and then sacrificing a pig to Zeus on the altar. Daniel 9:27, however, promises that the defiler of the temple (Antiochus) will be defeated, which occurred in 164 BC when Judas Maccabeus led the Jewish revolt that expelled the forces of Antiochus from Jerusalem (see 1 Macc. 4:36–61; cf. 6:1–17).

The human body has its origin in the act of creation by God depicted in Gen. 2:7, so that it comes under the heading of the “very good” evaluation at the close of the six days of creation (1:31). In neither the OT nor the NT is the body viewed as evil, in contrast to the ancient Greek view that saw the human body as a prison of the soul and viewed death as a release from this bondage. This contributes to the Bible’s positive view of human sexuality when properly expressed in a committed marriage relationship, one notable example being the mutual admiration of the man and the woman who are deeply in love in Song of Songs, where we find a head-to-toe description of the man’s physique (5:10–16) and a corresponding description of the woman’s body (7:1–8).

Old Testament. In the OT, death is regularly described as a returning of the body to the dust/ground from which it was made (e.g., Gen. 3:19; Ps. 90:3). The dignity of the human body is signaled by the importance of proper burial (Deut. 21:22–23), which is a cultic rather than a health regulation in the OT. The outrage committed by the Philistines on the bodies of Saul and his sons (1 Sam. 31), the deliberate desecration of tombs (2 Kings 23:16; Amos 2:1), and leaving an enemy unburied are ways of expressing utter contempt. The ensuring of proper burial (even of strangers) becomes a mark of Jewish piety, as exemplified in Tob. 2:1–10; 12:11–15.

The Hebrew word nepesh (often translated “soul”) can be used of a dead body (e.g., Lev. 21:11; Num. 6:6; 19:13; Hag. 2:13), though this word has a wide range of meaning (sometimes it means “throat”). This usage is not to be taken as signifying that the soul/body distinction is not recognized. On the contrary, in OT teaching “body” (whatever the Hebrew word used) always refers to the physical body, not to the whole human person that is bipartite (body/soul) within an overall psychophysical unity. The reference in Mic. 6:7 (NIV: “the fruit of my body”) is really to the “womb” (cf. Deut. 28:4), and the Hebrew word in question, beten, can refer to a male body insofar as it is involved in procreation (Ps. 132:11).

New Testament. Hebrews insists on the real humanity of Jesus (2:14–18), and the Gospels portray him as having the normal physical requirements of drink, food, and sleep (Mark 4:38; John 4:7–8). To deny that Jesus Christ came “in the flesh” strikes at the heart of the gospel and is the spirit of the antichrist (1 John 4:2–3). For atonement to take place, it was required that Jesus offer himself body and soul to God through death (Heb. 10:5–10, 20). At the Last Supper, when Jesus said, “This is my body” (Matt. 26:26), his meaning was that the bread represented his body, which would be offered on the cross as the sacrifice that makes possible the inauguration of the new covenant (cf. Exod. 24:1–8).

The bodily resurrection of Jesus is evidenced by the empty tomb (Mark 16:4–6) and the appearance of the risen Christ to his followers (e.g., Luke 24:36–43; see the list of witnesses in 1 Cor. 15:5–8). This is a fundamental point of Christian doctrine and gospel proclamation, providing assurance to believers that they too will be physically raised from the dead (1 Cor. 15:42–52), a belief found already in the OT (Dan. 12:2). Salvation in the Bible embraces the redemption of the body and the renewal of the physical creation. At the time of Christ’s return, believers will be raised from their graves and meet their returning Lord (1 Thess. 4:13–18).

In what is acknowledged by all to be a difficult passage (2 Cor. 5:1–9), Paul appears to envisage that at the point of death he will not become a disembodied soul but instead will “be clothed with [his] heavenly dwelling” (5:4). The expression “away from the body” (5:8) is not to be taken as an indication of bodiless existence, but rather is explained by “at home with the Lord” and refers to the believer’s state upon leaving this earthly life. The nature of the “spiritual body” in 1 Cor. 15:35–49 is only hinted at by means of analogies (e.g., the seed) or contrasts (between the “perishable” and the “imperishable”), but its physicality (though gloriously transformed) is plain. Perhaps our clearest indication is provided by what we are told of the resurrection body of Jesus, which could pass through grave clothes (Luke 24:12; John 20:5–7), appear and disappear in a closed room (Luke 24:31, 36), and ingest food and be touched (Luke 24:37–43).

Paul made use the “body” analogy for the character of the church as the “body of Christ” (1 Cor. 12:12–26), viewing it as an organism consisting of different, mutually dependent members or organs. This teaching was designed to rebuke and correct the self-glorifying and self-serving use and abuse of spiritual gifts in the Corinthian church. So too, the reality of the Christian community as a “body” (1 Cor. 10:17; 11:29) showed that their uncaring attitude toward each other manifested at their suppers was totally inappropriate. In the same letter Paul says that the believer’s “body” is united to Christ, making sexual immorality a thing to be shunned (6:12–20). Believers are to glorify God in their bodies. The analogy of the body is used a little differently in Ephesians (1:23; 2:16) and Colossians (1:18, 24), where its point is that Christ is the “head” of the body (the church), which therefore must submit to his direction and rule. Believers are to pre­sent their “bodies” as a living sacrifice, serving the master who redeemed them (Rom. 12:1). The verse that follows gives the other side to the equation: serving God with the mind (12:2). Body and mind together make up the complete human being, who is a psychosomatic unity. See also Gestures.

Retribution refers to “giving what is due,” usually in response to evil. Retribution is an important theological doctrine whose significance is belied by scant use of the term in English translations (ESV 2×; NIV 6×; NRSV 9×). Retribution is driven by the theological conviction that moral order is built into the fabric of the world (Ps. 7:14–16; Prov. 26:27). This moral compass is guaranteed by God’s oversight, meting out justice in judgment and rewards to the righteous, not only on the human-human level, but also on the divine-human level (2 Cor. 9:6; Gal. 6:7). This biblical equation assures that (1) life is not overwhelmed by moral chaos, (2) human actions affect the future, (3) the world is morally uniform, and (4) human revenge is to be avoided (Lev. 19:17–18; Matt. 16:27; Rom. 12:19). With the human community in view, God’s commands are intended to instruct and guide. Not surprisingly, address of retribution is found throughout biblical literature: legal (Deut. 28), narrative (Num. 16), poetic (Pss. 18:20; 94:15), sapiential (Prov. 11:24–25), and prophetic (Hab. 2:2–20).

This poetic justice pervades the OT in the judgment and exile of Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:8–24), Cain’s sentence and blood revenge (Gen. 4:15, 24), and the worldwide flood and annihilation (Gen. 6–9) (cf. Exod. 21:20–21; Deut. 30:15–20; Josh. 7; Amos 3:14–15; Mic. 2:1–3). Such stories reveal a sovereign God acting as an external agent who exacts punishment in light of his intentions for creation. For Israel, retribution is the exercise of Yahweh’s legal rights in an attempt to restore covenant fellowship (Lev. 26:40–45). Although serious tensions exist—sometimes the wicked prosper and the innocent suffer—this does not alter the grand scheme of Scripture (Job 33; Jer. 12:1–4). In some scenarios, only the next lifetime will fully bring justice and reward (Ps. 49:5–15; Dan. 12:2; Matt. 25:31–46; Rev. 22:1–5). Deep wisdom, however, embraces mystery and understands the limits of human agency (Gen. 50:19–20; James 1:5).

While the notion of consequence may be too strong, the concept of correspondence is helpful for understanding the concept of retribution. God’s judgments reveal (1) a correspondence between act and effect, (2) accountability to known law, (3) a debt requiring resolve/restitution, and (4) punishment that reenacts elements of the sin itself. God’s roles as divine warrior, judge, and king proclaim his universal rule and preserve it from all who would mock or defy his royal authority (Gen. 3:14–19; Deut. 7:10; 1 Sam. 24:19; 2 Sam. 12:11–12; Ps. 149; Prov. 15:25; Mic. 5:15; 1 Cor. 16:22; Gal. 1:8–9; 2 Thess. 1:5–10).

God’s reasons for retribution center on disobedience and injustice, while his purposes are essentially restorative and developmental. Retribution is an application of God’s holiness that purifies the world for his kingdom of peace. In this way, vengeance and deliverance work together (Nah. 1:2, 7). Paradoxically, retribution gives hope to fallen humanity for sin acknowledged and unacknowledged, anticipating the triumph of righteousness (Ps. 58:11). Retribution grants rationality and stability to humanity, promotes closure in crisis, and fosters hope—a forerunner of the ultimate judgment before the throne of God the King.

Eternal life usually is mentioned in reference to human life, where it means unending life in the body, free from death. The expression, though most common in the NT, is drawn from the OT. The book of Daniel says that many who “sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt” (12:2). This yearning for eternal life is also expressed in Genesis, where those who eat of the “tree of life” will “live forever” (3:22). In Deuteronomy, God likewise declares, “I live forever” (32:40). Among the DSS, 4Q418 (frag. 69) and 1QS (4:7), both of which predate the NT, also refer to everlasting life.

The NT expression “eternal life” may seem to have a different meaning than the OT expression “everlasting life.” Any such appearance arises only in translation to English, for the underlying Greek words in the NT have the same meaning as the underlying Hebrew words in the OT. The words are already treated synonymously by the LXX, an ancient translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek (predating the NT).

The English word “eternal” may refer to eternity past and future, but in biblical usage that word does not generally refer to eternity past. This is evident where the NT mentions “eternal fire” (Matt. 18:8) and “eternal punishment” (Matt. 25:46). It is also indicated where eternal life is seen as a future reward for the righteous (Dan. 12:2; Luke 18:30; Rom. 2:7; Gal. 6:8; Titus 1:2; 1 John 2:25).

That life in the body is included in the NT concept of eternal life is evident from several considerations. Jesus says of everyone who believes in him, “I will raise them up at the last day” (John 6:40). The bodily nature of everlasting life is indicated by Jesus’ own resurrection, for his tomb was left empty. Jesus says after his own resurrection that a spirit “does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have” (Luke 24:39). The apostle Paul even writes that without the resurrection the Christian faith is invalidated (1 Cor. 15:12–19). When Paul says that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God,” he does not mean that resurrection is of the human spirit, but rather that perishable flesh and blood must first be made immortal (1 Cor. 15:50–54; 2 Cor. 5:4).

The prospect of eternal life is often contrasted with death and punishment, just as the Bible more generally contrasts the prospect of life with death and lawless behavior. In Gen. 3, the sin of Adam and Eve shows that people turn from God out of self-interest, so everlasting life is not given to them. Much later, the people of Israel are warned that they will suffer death if they break faith with the true God to follow other gods (Lev. 26; Deut. 28; 30:15–20). Later still, the book of Daniel warns plainly that resurrection is to everlasting life or to everlasting contempt (12:1–3). The NT likewise, drawing at times from the Hebrew prophets (e.g., Isa. 66:22–24), contrasts the prospect of eternal life with the prospect of punishment for doing evil (Matt. 25:31–46; John 5:28–29; Rom. 6:23; Gal. 6:8; Rev. 20:10–15; 22:1–6).

Just as eternal life is contrasted with death, eternal life is sometimes referred to more fundamentally and simply as “life” (e.g., Matt. 19:17; Acts 11:18; 1 John 3:14). All life comes from God, through his divine word (Gen. 1; Deut. 30:20; John 1:1–4). The NT says that God gave his Son the power to give eternal life, since the Son does only what God the Father commands (John 5:19–30; 6:57–58).

The NT promises eternal life to all who believe (trust) in God’s Son (John 3:16; 3:36; 6:40; 11:25–26; 20:31; 1 John 5:13). To believe in God’s Son is to believe that God sent Jesus (John 17:8), to listen to Jesus’ message from God and so believe in God (5:24; 12:44), and to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah (20:31).

The belief in God and Jesus that secures eternal life is not mere mental assent, but rather is expressed in a life that turns from evil. Those who will receive eternal life are characterized by love rather than by hatred and murder (John 5:29; 1 John 3:14–15). Only the righteous will enter into eternal life, and they are marked by their care for Jesus’ brothers and sisters: feeding the hungry and clothing the poor (Matt. 25:31–46). They do not live for themselves, nor do they give free rein to all human desires, but instead they are led by, and walk in accordance with, the Spirit of God (John 12:25; Gal. 5:16–21; 6:8).

Retribution refers to “giving what is due,” usually in response to evil. Retribution is an important theological doctrine whose significance is belied by scant use of the term in English translations (ESV 2×; NIV 6×; NRSV 9×). Retribution is driven by the theological conviction that moral order is built into the fabric of the world (Ps. 7:14–16; Prov. 26:27). This moral compass is guaranteed by God’s oversight, meting out justice in judgment and rewards to the righteous, not only on the human-human level, but also on the divine-human level (2 Cor. 9:6; Gal. 6:7). This biblical equation assures that (1) life is not overwhelmed by moral chaos, (2) human actions affect the future, (3) the world is morally uniform, and (4) human revenge is to be avoided (Lev. 19:17–18; Matt. 16:27; Rom. 12:19). With the human community in view, God’s commands are intended to instruct and guide. Not surprisingly, address of retribution is found throughout biblical literature: legal (Deut. 28), narrative (Num. 16), poetic (Pss. 18:20; 94:15), sapiential (Prov. 11:24–25), and prophetic (Hab. 2:2–20).

This poetic justice pervades the OT in the judgment and exile of Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:8–24), Cain’s sentence and blood revenge (Gen. 4:15, 24), and the worldwide flood and annihilation (Gen. 6–9) (cf. Exod. 21:20–21; Deut. 30:15–20; Josh. 7; Amos 3:14–15; Mic. 2:1–3). Such stories reveal a sovereign God acting as an external agent who exacts punishment in light of his intentions for creation. For Israel, retribution is the exercise of Yahweh’s legal rights in an attempt to restore covenant fellowship (Lev. 26:40–45). Although serious tensions exist—sometimes the wicked prosper and the innocent suffer—this does not alter the grand scheme of Scripture (Job 33; Jer. 12:1–4). In some scenarios, only the next lifetime will fully bring justice and reward (Ps. 49:5–15; Dan. 12:2; Matt. 25:31–46; Rev. 22:1–5). Deep wisdom, however, embraces mystery and understands the limits of human agency (Gen. 50:19–20; James 1:5).

While the notion of consequence may be too strong, the concept of correspondence is helpful for understanding the concept of retribution. God’s judgments reveal (1) a correspondence between act and effect, (2) accountability to known law, (3) a debt requiring resolve/restitution, and (4) punishment that reenacts elements of the sin itself. God’s roles as divine warrior, judge, and king proclaim his universal rule and preserve it from all who would mock or defy his royal authority (Gen. 3:14–19; Deut. 7:10; 1 Sam. 24:19; 2 Sam. 12:11–12; Ps. 149; Prov. 15:25; Mic. 5:15; 1 Cor. 16:22; Gal. 1:8–9; 2 Thess. 1:5–10).

God’s reasons for retribution center on disobedience and injustice, while his purposes are essentially restorative and developmental. Retribution is an application of God’s holiness that purifies the world for his kingdom of peace. In this way, vengeance and deliverance work together (Nah. 1:2, 7). Paradoxically, retribution gives hope to fallen humanity for sin acknowledged and unacknowledged, anticipating the triumph of righteousness (Ps. 58:11). Retribution grants rationality and stability to humanity, promotes closure in crisis, and fosters hope—a forerunner of the ultimate judgment before the throne of God the King.

The concept of justice pervades the Bible, especially, though not exclusively, the OT. The key biblical terms that convey this concept include mishpat, tsedeq/tsedaqah, yashar in the OT and the dik- word group in the NT (whose noun and verb forms are translated respectively as “righteous” and “justify” or their respective cognates). The biblical concept of justice is an embodiment of two contemporary concepts: righteousness and justice. The former designates compliance with the divine norm, while the latter emphasizes conformity to a societal standard of what is right and equitable. Focusing exclusively on the latter hinders the correct understanding of justice in the biblical sense. Additionally, the biblical understanding of this concept is encumbered by the use of differing English terms to translate the same Hebrew or Greek terms.

Mishpat and Tsedaqah

Mishpat inherently encompasses the idea of judicial activism consisting in the provision of standard criteria (legislation, instructions, directives) for conduct and adjudication, and/or the actual arbitration between parties with the goal of ascertaining culpability or otherwise and administering the requisite sanctions or acquittal. Tsedaqah, on the other hand, emphasizes the established norm of just order for right conduct both in the larger society and for individuals. Whereas mishpat emphasizes the action that seeks to establish or enforce right patterns of behavior for the common good, tsedaqah stresses the practice (or lack thereof) of such a norm in society, or between individuals, or an individual’s compliance with such a norm.

When used in combination as a hendiadys (or word pair), these two terms signify an inherent requirement for conformity to an established norm (whether in the religious sphere or in civil society) or the requirement of loyalty or right conduct between individuals. To the person who stands to benefit from this norm, it approximates a right (i.e., a claim). Conversely, implicit duty is placed upon the person who ensures the conformity to such an established norm. This fact is better appreciated when we reckon with the covenantal nature of requirements for justice in the ancient world, in which both parties have both claim and responsibility. Broadly speaking, this concept also implies good governance, which accrues order to life and common benefits to all members of the community.

This idea is exemplified even in passages that do not use this precise phraseology (mishpat utsedaqah). Judah’s widowed daughter-in-law, Tamar, had an inherent right to be provided with a (kinsman-redeemer) husband to raise up progeny for her deceased husband, while Judah had the incumbent duty of giving her in levirate marriage to his surviving son. When Judah failed to execute his duty, Tamar entrapped him into an incestuous relationship, from which she conceived. When condemned to die for adultery in a clannish court setting, Tamar revealed the identity of her unborn child’s father, to which Judah responded by saying, “She is more righteous than I, since I wouldn’t give her to my son Shelah” (Gen. 38:26). That is, she acted more in conformity to the norm than he did. In another instance, Yahweh, while challenging the Judeans concerning their loyalty to him in a covenant lawsuit setting, asks, “A son honors his father, and a slave his master. If I am a father, where is the honor due me? If I am a master, where is the respect due me?” (Mal. 1:6). It is Yahweh’s right as father and master to receive honor and respect, while it is their duty to give him both.

God as the Source and Model of Justice

To be just, then, implies conformity to that which is right—yashar (the standard or norm). In Scripture, this standard is the revealed divine will and character. Compliance to it is often expressed in biblical narrative as doing what is “right [or good] in the Lord’s sight” (Deut. 6:18; 12:28; 1 Kings 14:8; 22:43), while its antithesis is doing what is “evil in the eyes of the Lord” (Judg. 2:11; 1 Kings 11:6; 14:22) or doing what some human figure(s) “saw fit” (Deut. 12:8; Judg. 17:6; 21:25).

Therefore, the source of justice is God himself. It flows from his essential character as one who is both just and righteous, whose actions are flawless, perfect, upright, and just (Deut. 32:4; 1 Sam. 12:7; 2 Sam. 22:31; Job 37:23; Ps. 89:14). God is the righteous lawgiver, hence the one who establishes the norm for right conduct (Deut. 4:4–8; Ps. 19:7–9). He requires justice of all his creatures (cf. Gen. 9:5–6; Exod. 21:12, 28–29). God also judges righteously (Gen. 18:25; 1 Kings 8:32; Ps. 9:4, 9; Jer. 9:24) and defends and vindicates the weak and oppressed (Deut. 10:18; Ps. 103:6). The responsibility of maintaining justice in the human community, however, he delegates to its leaders, such as civil magistrates or political officials, and requires them to execute this responsibility with integrity, equity, and impartiality (Deut. 1:16–17; 16:18–20; Ps. 82:2–4; Prov. 31:8–9; John 7:24; 1 Pet. 2:13–14). God’s requirement of justice in the human community is not limited to its leaders only; it is incumbent upon everyone therein (Ps. 15:1–5; Mic. 6:8; Zech. 7:9; 8:17; Matt. 23:23).

Executing justice requires doing all that is essential to bring about the divine order implicit in creation and explicit in revealed truth, to produce harmony in all relationships in which humankind is involved (divine-human, human-human, and human-nature). This has the twofold result of restraining evil and advancing the benefits of just living within the human society. Thus, the fruits of justice are to be seen in all spheres of human life, such as spirituality (2 Cor. 5:17–21), morality and ethics (Phil. 4:8; Col. 3:5–9; Titus 2:11–13), social justice (Exod. 22:21–24; Isa. 56:1; Amos 2:6–7; Ezek. 22:7–29; James 2:1–9), and economic justice (Amos 5:11; 8:4–6; James 5:1–6), as well as in the environment (Deut. 20:19–20; Pss. 96:9–13; 104:1–31; Eccles. 2:5–6; Rom. 8:19–22).

Additionally, the outworking of justice produces (re)distribution and retribution. Distribution means that those blessed materially share of their blessings with those in need (Deut. 15:1–15; Ps. 112:5–9; Prov. 28:27; Isa. 58:1–11; 2 Cor. 8–9). Retribution relates to the vindication and deliverance of the oppressed and judgment on the wicked (1 Sam. 2:7–10; Job 36:5–10; Ps. 72:4; Luke 4:17–20). This is both attested in biblical Israel’s experience (Isa. 1:17–20; 5:1–9; Jer. 5:26–29; Mic. 2:1–3) and is being anticipated at the final judgment (Isa. 66:24; Dan. 12:1–3; Matt. 25:31–46; 2 Thess. 1:5–10). The vindicated obtain God’s love and grace, while the judged receive his justice. Justice and love, therefore, are the two sides of God’s holiness.

The obligations of relationships within ancient societies and between social groups were frequently reinforced by means of oaths, and the practice of oath making (by both God and people) is witnessed to in the pages of the Bible. The name of God was frequently invoked (Judg. 8:19; 2 Kings 2:2), but oaths were not to be made using the names of foreign deities (Ps. 16:4). For this reason, when an oath was broken, God’s name was profaned (Lev. 19:12). To take an oath was to ask God to witness what was promised, and it invited him to act as avenger if the promise was broken (Gen. 31:50; 1 Sam. 12:3). This made oath taking a religious act, and so oaths often were made at sanctuaries and under the supervision of cultic officials (Num. 5:11–31; Judg. 11:11; Hos. 4:15).

The words of an oath were accompanied by various gestures, such as putting a hand “under the thigh” (near the genitals?) (Gen. 24:2; 47:29) or raising the right hand to heaven (Gen. 14:22; Deut. 32:40; Rev. 10:5–6). Daniel 12:7 depicts a particularly solemn oath, involving the raising of both hands. By invoking God’s name, an oath invited God to punish the oath breaker, as in Ruth 1:17: “May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely” (for similar wording, see 1 Sam. 3:17; 14:44; 2 Sam. 3:9). Such a self-maledictory oath may have been accompanied by the gesture of a hand at the throat, signifying the death penalty for infringement. People brought a curse upon themselves if an oath was broken (e.g., Num. 5:22), either for doing what was wrong (Num. 5:22; 1 Sam. 19:6) or for not speaking the truth (e.g., Mark 14:71). Two Hebrew words are used in respect to oaths; the stronger one can actually mean a “curse.” The more common word for swearing may relate to the number seven, due to the ceremonies that could accompany oath making. For example, Abraham set aside seven ewe lambs (Gen. 21:22–31).

In the Bible, God is portrayed as binding himself by oaths, most notably his sworn promises to Abraham (Gen. 22:16–18; 50:24). This fact is used by the author of Hebrews in an argument designed to assure readers that God meant what he said when he made promises to his people (Heb. 6:13–18). The coming of Jesus fulfilled the terms of that oath (Luke 1:73). So too the Davidic covenant was supported by a divine oath (Pss. 89:35, 49; 110:4; 132:11), and this was fulfilled by the enthronement of Christ at his resurrection and ascension (Acts 2:30–33).

Jesus’ teaching on oaths (Matt. 5:33–37) does not necessarily contradict OT legislation (cf. Lev. 19:12; Num. 30:2; Deut. 23:21–23) but rather brings out the true heart of God behind the legislation. Oaths are unnecessary, Jesus said, for those who habitually tell the truth. An emphatic yes or no is all that is needed. The teaching of James 5:12 reflects what is found in Jesus’ teaching on this subject. This may not outlaw all oath taking, and certainly the apostle Paul did not understand there to be a blanket prohibition of oaths, for in his letters he is on record as making oaths (Gal. 1:20; Phil. 1:8).

A specific contemporary translation (MSG) of two Hebrew terms (tame’ and sheqets) otherwise rendered “unclean detestable thing” or something similar (e.g., tame’ in Lev. 7:21 [NIV: “any unclean creature that moves along the ground”]; sheqets in Isa. 66:17). In this instance, it refers to unclean or nonkosher creatures that swim, fly, or swarm according to the descriptions in Lev. 11:10–23. More broadly, obscene objects may be understood to be things that are abominable before God, including idols in general (Deut. 29:17; 32:16; 2 Kings 23:13, 24; Ezra 9:1; Isa. 57:8, 10; Jer. 7:30; 16:18; 32:34; Dan. 11:31; 12:11), Asherah poles (1 Kings 15:13; 2 Kings 23:6; 2 Chron. 15:16), and pillars of Baal (2 Kings 3:2).

A literary device whereby an author writes under a name other than his or her own (a pseu-donym) or a book is deliberately assigned to a fictitious author (pseudepigraphy). In the case of ancient Jewish practice, the name borrowed was usually that of some famous worthy of the past (e.g., Enoch, Ezra), with the aim of bolstering the credentials of the book to which the name was attached. This is a common phenomenon in the Apocrypha (e.g., 2 Esdras, Baruch, Epistle of Jeremiah). It is even more common in the large collection of Second Temple texts now known as the Pseudepigrapha (e.g., 1 Enoch, Odes of Solomon, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs). (See also Pseudepigrapha.)

Scholars continue to debate the morality of pseudonymity and whether it is proper for a pseudonymous book to be placed within the canon of Scripture. Some excuse pseudonymity as a mere stylistic device or explain it as a culturally accepted convention. Others put a positive spin on the phenomenon, and so, for example, claim that in the Pastoral Epistles literate disciples of Paul sought to apply his ideas to newly developing situations in the years following his death. Some argue that such deception for a good cause is legitimate because it helped to gain a hearing for orthodox teaching. Others totally reject pseudepigraphy, viewing it as little better than deception and forgery and thus unworthy of literature viewed as inspired by God. The last approach seems to be most consistent with a high view of Scripture.

Over the last two hundred years a number of biblical books have been identified by some scholars as pseudonymous, notably Daniel in the OT, and in the NT six letters in the Pauline corpus—Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, and the Pastoral Epistles (1–2 Timothy, Titus)—together with 2 Peter and Jude.

Old Testament

Certainly one mark of Jewish apocalyptic works is pseudonymity, and the book of Daniel is often viewed by critical scholars as no exception to this rule. It is difficult, however, to see how the name “Daniel” would have served to give the OT book named after him the desired authority, which is a major motivation for attaching a pseudonym.

Apart from the book itself, we essentially know nothing about this Daniel, whom it describes as living in Babylonia during the exile. In the book of Ezekiel we have two references to a Daniel (Ezek. 14:14, 20). In this passage the prophet says that when the land sins against God, “even if these three men—Noah, Daniel and Job—were in it, they could save only themselves by their righteousness.” There is, in addition, the further reference in Ezek. 14:16 to “these three men,” obviously referring to the same three men. Ezekiel speaks of these three men as embodiments of righteousness, but the fact that this Daniel figure is placed between two ancients (Noah and Job) suggests that he too is a figure of antiquity, not a contemporary of Ezekiel.

Ezekiel 28:3 taunts the king of Tyre: “Are you wiser than Daniel? Is no secret hidden from you?” Here “Daniel” (the Hebrew text at Ezek. 28:3 actually reads “Danel”) obviously is a proverbial figure of wisdom, and this implies that he may have been well known in Tyre and therefore could well have been Syro-Phoenician. There is in fact a “Danel” figure mentioned in Ugaritic literature (before 1200 BC). On the other hand, the Daniel of the book of Daniel is not a patriarch like Enoch, Noah, and Job, nor is he a famous figure like Ezra or the assistant to a prophet, as Baruch was to Jeremiah. Daniel is known only through the book that bears his name. In other words, the usual motivation explaining the use of a pseudonym does not apply to the canonical book of Daniel.

Also, the closing up and sealing of the book (Dan. 8:26; 12:4) is no mere device necessitated by using as a pseudonym the name of a man supposedly living in the time of Cyrus. Rather, the sealing signifies that much of the content of the later chapters of the book will be understood only when the predicted events begin to take place at a future time, with the book placing Daniel (its presumed author) in the sixth century BC.

New Testament

The Pastoral Epistles. With regard to the Pastoral Epistles, all three letters claim to be authored by the apostle Paul (1 Tim. 1:1; 2 Tim. 1:1; Titus 1:1). In seeking to determine the time of composition within a chronology of Paul’s ministry, they must be dated toward the end of his life (in the case of 2 Timothy, perhaps only shortly before his death) and after the close of the book of Acts, which concludes with the apostle’s arrival in Rome (Acts 28). In his letter to the Romans, Paul anticipates a future mission to Spain (Rom. 15:23–29), but the Pastoral Epistles imply that he returned to the east. Ephesus and Crete are the presumed locations of his coworkers Timothy and Titus (see 1 Tim. 1:3; Titus 1:5). On this supposition, these letters arise from a further mission there and a second (and final) imprisonment. The fact that Acts says nothing about this is no evidence against the supposition.

It is not necessary to view the mundane ecclesiastical arrangements of the Pastoral Epistles as inconsistent with a charismatic model of leadership in other Pauline letters (note the address to “overseers and deacons” in Phil. 1:1). We know from Acts 14:23; 20:17–38 that Paul appointed elders in the churches that he founded. The theological differences between the Pastoral Epistles and earlier Pauline compositions should not be overemphasized. The stress laid upon “the faith” and “sound teaching” is exactly what might be expected if Paul anticipated his imminent removal from the scene.

The other alternative is the theory that after Paul’s death, members of a Pauline school (Timothy? Luke? Onesimus?) continued to supply letters under his name, addressing contemporary church issues in the guise of Paul, hoping to guarantee the legacy of the great apostle. Some scholars go as far as to assert that an admirer of Paul combined genuine Pauline fragments within a fictitious framework. The earliest listing of Paul’s letters is that of Marcion (c. AD 140), and he fails to mention the Pastoral Epistles. That omission may be explained in various ways. There is no evidence, however, that anyone in the early church (orthodox or heterodox) who knew of the letters doubted their authenticity.

Ephesians and Colossians. There is some textual uncertainty with regard to the words “in Ephesus” in Eph. 1:1, making it possible that the letter was originally a circular letter written by Paul to more than one church. The letter mentions no one by name except Tychicus (Eph. 6:21), who carried the letter (perhaps to different churches in turn). This is enough to explain its more general orientation than some other Pauline letters, and any supposed theological “development” is not beyond the likely boundaries of Paul’s expansive mind (e.g., his teaching on the church). The use of the “in Christ” formula in Ephesians is not substantially different from how Paul handles it elsewhere. The letter’s twofold structure of doctrinal exposition followed by practical instruction fits a common Pauline epistolary pattern. Indeed, F. F. Bruce refers to this letter as “the quintessence of Paulinism.”

In a number of ways Colossians and Ephesians share a common outlook. The Jewish Christian proto-gnostic false teaching combated in Colossians is not referred to in other Pauline letters, but it may have been a local Colossian variant. The letter is explicitly attributed to Paul, at both the beginning and the end (Col. 1:1; 4:18). Arguments about authorship based on style and unusual vocabulary are notoriously slippery and inconclusive. The high Christology of cosmic dimensions in Col. 1:15–20; 2:9–10, 15 is also present in undisputed Pauline letters (cf. Phil. 2:9–11). The obvious relationship of Colossians to the little letter to Philemon (e.g., Col. 4:9, 17; cf. Philem. 2, 12) is one of the strongest arguments in favor of the Pauline authorship of the former. Any theory of pseudepigraphy turns Col. 4:7–17, with its many names, into fanciful and free invention with little real purpose. Also, we might wonder why a later author chose to write under the name of Paul to a church that Paul himself did not found.

Second Thessalonians. Some view the futuristic timetable provided in 2 Thess. 2:1–12 as moving beyond Paul, with the world’s end not yet in sight, for the writer teaches that certain things have to happen before the return of Christ, whereas in 1 Thess. 4:13–5:11 Paul has a nearer end in view. In both letters, however, the apostle is seeking to dampen the wrong kind of apocalyptic excitement. In 2 Thessalonians, it is clear that Paul knows a tradition of Jesus’ teaching about the future, such as also found in Mark 13, so that there is nothing unreasonably “late” in the views expressed.

The substantial overlap in material between 1 Thessalonians and 2 Thessalonians is not evidence of the labors of a later disciple and imitator of Paul. It is highly ironic that some scholars suggest 2 Thessalonians is not a genuine letter of Paul: the letter itself condemns a fake letter supposedly from him that claims that the day of the Lord is already past (2 Thess. 2:2), and the original letter included a final greeting written in Paul’s own hand (2 Thess. 3:17).

Second Peter and Jude. As for 2 Peter, it was not as well known in the early church as 1 Peter, and some (according to Origen) were hesitant to accept it. Its author claims to be a witness to the transfiguration (2 Pet. 1:16–18). Such personal allusions need not be attributed to a later writer who was trying too hard to show that he was Simon Peter. The obvious connection of 2 Pet. 1:14 to what is recorded in John 21 does not prove that the writer was dependent on that chapter.

The remarkable parallels between 2 Peter and Jude show that one is dependent upon the other, though scholars are not unanimous about which letter was prior. We cannot rule out that Peter would use and adapt the writings of a less prominent leader such as Jude. Jude makes use of apocryphal books, but neither in Jude nor in 2 Peter do arguments against the particular brand of false teaching require a second-century (postapostolic) dating.

A literary device whereby an author writes under a name other than his or her own (a pseu-donym) or a book is deliberately assigned to a fictitious author (pseudepigraphy). In the case of ancient Jewish practice, the name borrowed was usually that of some famous worthy of the past (e.g., Enoch, Ezra), with the aim of bolstering the credentials of the book to which the name was attached. This is a common phenomenon in the Apocrypha (e.g., 2 Esdras, Baruch, Epistle of Jeremiah). It is even more common in the large collection of Second Temple texts now known as the Pseudepigrapha (e.g., 1 Enoch, Odes of Solomon, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs). (See also Pseudepigrapha.)

Scholars continue to debate the morality of pseudonymity and whether it is proper for a pseudonymous book to be placed within the canon of Scripture. Some excuse pseudonymity as a mere stylistic device or explain it as a culturally accepted convention. Others put a positive spin on the phenomenon, and so, for example, claim that in the Pastoral Epistles literate disciples of Paul sought to apply his ideas to newly developing situations in the years following his death. Some argue that such deception for a good cause is legitimate because it helped to gain a hearing for orthodox teaching. Others totally reject pseudepigraphy, viewing it as little better than deception and forgery and thus unworthy of literature viewed as inspired by God. The last approach seems to be most consistent with a high view of Scripture.

Over the last two hundred years a number of biblical books have been identified by some scholars as pseudonymous, notably Daniel in the OT, and in the NT six letters in the Pauline corpus—Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, and the Pastoral Epistles (1–2 Timothy, Titus)—together with 2 Peter and Jude.

Old Testament

Certainly one mark of Jewish apocalyptic works is pseudonymity, and the book of Daniel is often viewed by critical scholars as no exception to this rule. It is difficult, however, to see how the name “Daniel” would have served to give the OT book named after him the desired authority, which is a major motivation for attaching a pseudonym.

Apart from the book itself, we essentially know nothing about this Daniel, whom it describes as living in Babylonia during the exile. In the book of Ezekiel we have two references to a Daniel (Ezek. 14:14, 20). In this passage the prophet says that when the land sins against God, “even if these three men—Noah, Daniel and Job—were in it, they could save only themselves by their righteousness.” There is, in addition, the further reference in Ezek. 14:16 to “these three men,” obviously referring to the same three men. Ezekiel speaks of these three men as embodiments of righteousness, but the fact that this Daniel figure is placed between two ancients (Noah and Job) suggests that he too is a figure of antiquity, not a contemporary of Ezekiel.

Ezekiel 28:3 taunts the king of Tyre: “Are you wiser than Daniel? Is no secret hidden from you?” Here “Daniel” (the Hebrew text at Ezek. 28:3 actually reads “Danel”) obviously is a proverbial figure of wisdom, and this implies that he may have been well known in Tyre and therefore could well have been Syro-Phoenician. There is in fact a “Danel” figure mentioned in Ugaritic literature (before 1200 BC). On the other hand, the Daniel of the book of Daniel is not a patriarch like Enoch, Noah, and Job, nor is he a famous figure like Ezra or the assistant to a prophet, as Baruch was to Jeremiah. Daniel is known only through the book that bears his name. In other words, the usual motivation explaining the use of a pseudonym does not apply to the canonical book of Daniel.

Also, the closing up and sealing of the book (Dan. 8:26; 12:4) is no mere device necessitated by using as a pseudonym the name of a man supposedly living in the time of Cyrus. Rather, the sealing signifies that much of the content of the later chapters of the book will be understood only when the predicted events begin to take place at a future time, with the book placing Daniel (its presumed author) in the sixth century BC.

New Testament

The Pastoral Epistles. With regard to the Pastoral Epistles, all three letters claim to be authored by the apostle Paul (1 Tim. 1:1; 2 Tim. 1:1; Titus 1:1). In seeking to determine the time of composition within a chronology of Paul’s ministry, they must be dated toward the end of his life (in the case of 2 Timothy, perhaps only shortly before his death) and after the close of the book of Acts, which concludes with the apostle’s arrival in Rome (Acts 28). In his letter to the Romans, Paul anticipates a future mission to Spain (Rom. 15:23–29), but the Pastoral Epistles imply that he returned to the east. Ephesus and Crete are the presumed locations of his coworkers Timothy and Titus (see 1 Tim. 1:3; Titus 1:5). On this supposition, these letters arise from a further mission there and a second (and final) imprisonment. The fact that Acts says nothing about this is no evidence against the supposition.

It is not necessary to view the mundane ecclesiastical arrangements of the Pastoral Epistles as inconsistent with a charismatic model of leadership in other Pauline letters (note the address to “overseers and deacons” in Phil. 1:1). We know from Acts 14:23; 20:17–38 that Paul appointed elders in the churches that he founded. The theological differences between the Pastoral Epistles and earlier Pauline compositions should not be overemphasized. The stress laid upon “the faith” and “sound teaching” is exactly what might be expected if Paul anticipated his imminent removal from the scene.

The other alternative is the theory that after Paul’s death, members of a Pauline school (Timothy? Luke? Onesimus?) continued to supply letters under his name, addressing contemporary church issues in the guise of Paul, hoping to guarantee the legacy of the great apostle. Some scholars go as far as to assert that an admirer of Paul combined genuine Pauline fragments within a fictitious framework. The earliest listing of Paul’s letters is that of Marcion (c. AD 140), and he fails to mention the Pastoral Epistles. That omission may be explained in various ways. There is no evidence, however, that anyone in the early church (orthodox or heterodox) who knew of the letters doubted their authenticity.

Ephesians and Colossians. There is some textual uncertainty with regard to the words “in Ephesus” in Eph. 1:1, making it possible that the letter was originally a circular letter written by Paul to more than one church. The letter mentions no one by name except Tychicus (Eph. 6:21), who carried the letter (perhaps to different churches in turn). This is enough to explain its more general orientation than some other Pauline letters, and any supposed theological “development” is not beyond the likely boundaries of Paul’s expansive mind (e.g., his teaching on the church). The use of the “in Christ” formula in Ephesians is not substantially different from how Paul handles it elsewhere. The letter’s twofold structure of doctrinal exposition followed by practical instruction fits a common Pauline epistolary pattern. Indeed, F. F. Bruce refers to this letter as “the quintessence of Paulinism.”

In a number of ways Colossians and Ephesians share a common outlook. The Jewish Christian proto-gnostic false teaching combated in Colossians is not referred to in other Pauline letters, but it may have been a local Colossian variant. The letter is explicitly attributed to Paul, at both the beginning and the end (Col. 1:1; 4:18). Arguments about authorship based on style and unusual vocabulary are notoriously slippery and inconclusive. The high Christology of cosmic dimensions in Col. 1:15–20; 2:9–10, 15 is also present in undisputed Pauline letters (cf. Phil. 2:9–11). The obvious relationship of Colossians to the little letter to Philemon (e.g., Col. 4:9, 17; cf. Philem. 2, 12) is one of the strongest arguments in favor of the Pauline authorship of the former. Any theory of pseudepigraphy turns Col. 4:7–17, with its many names, into fanciful and free invention with little real purpose. Also, we might wonder why a later author chose to write under the name of Paul to a church that Paul himself did not found.

Second Thessalonians. Some view the futuristic timetable provided in 2 Thess. 2:1–12 as moving beyond Paul, with the world’s end not yet in sight, for the writer teaches that certain things have to happen before the return of Christ, whereas in 1 Thess. 4:13–5:11 Paul has a nearer end in view. In both letters, however, the apostle is seeking to dampen the wrong kind of apocalyptic excitement. In 2 Thessalonians, it is clear that Paul knows a tradition of Jesus’ teaching about the future, such as also found in Mark 13, so that there is nothing unreasonably “late” in the views expressed.

The substantial overlap in material between 1 Thessalonians and 2 Thessalonians is not evidence of the labors of a later disciple and imitator of Paul. It is highly ironic that some scholars suggest 2 Thessalonians is not a genuine letter of Paul: the letter itself condemns a fake letter supposedly from him that claims that the day of the Lord is already past (2 Thess. 2:2), and the original letter included a final greeting written in Paul’s own hand (2 Thess. 3:17).

Second Peter and Jude. As for 2 Peter, it was not as well known in the early church as 1 Peter, and some (according to Origen) were hesitant to accept it. Its author claims to be a witness to the transfiguration (2 Pet. 1:16–18). Such personal allusions need not be attributed to a later writer who was trying too hard to show that he was Simon Peter. The obvious connection of 2 Pet. 1:14 to what is recorded in John 21 does not prove that the writer was dependent on that chapter.

The remarkable parallels between 2 Peter and Jude show that one is dependent upon the other, though scholars are not unanimous about which letter was prior. We cannot rule out that Peter would use and adapt the writings of a less prominent leader such as Jude. Jude makes use of apocryphal books, but neither in Jude nor in 2 Peter do arguments against the particular brand of false teaching require a second-century (postapostolic) dating.

Christ’s resurrection is the foundational event for the Christian faith. Paul goes so far as to say that if Christ did not rise, then the Christian faith is futile and Christians are to be pitied more than all others (1 Cor. 15:17–19). Resurrection’s climaxing position in all four Gospel narratives yields the same understanding. Christ came not merely to die, as some claim, but to conquer death. Resurrection gives everything that Christ did before his death an “of God” significance, and it establishes everything that follows as a guarantee of God’s eschatological promises. Without the resurrection, Jesus would have been just another “prophet hopeful” who died a tragic peasant death in Jerusalem. However, as it is, evidenced by the resurrection, he is the Son of God. According to the NT, the resurrection is the triumphant cry that God indeed did come to visit his creation and conquer the power of sin and death.

Old Testament

Resurrection hope is poorly attested by the OT, especially in earlier sections. References are made to death that seem to indicate that the dead have not ceased to exist, but such passages refer (at best) to death as a shadowy, nonlife existence (Job 26:5; Ps. 88:10; Ezek. 32:21). When early OT texts suggest that certain individuals experience everlasting life, they do so by escaping death altogether. Enoch (Gen. 5:24) walked with God and was simply taken away, while God dramatically picked up Elijah in a chariot of fire (2 Kings 2:11). Saul’s attempt at Endor to reawaken Samuel from death to receive his counsel (1 Sam. 28:3–14) speaks more to the superstition and disobedience of Saul than it does to Israel’s faith in life after death.

Some OT prophetic texts hint at a corporate restoration of life beyond the grave. It is a promise not of resurrection from death to life for the individual but of God’s unceasing love for corporate Israel that ultimately results in the redemption of his people from the snares of death (Hos. 6:1–3; 13:14). Although these texts are difficult to separate from Israel’s vision of postexilic national restoration, as in the vision of the valley of dry bones (Ezek. 37:1–14), they do indicate a growing sense of hope that God will restore Israel to renewed life in his presence after death. A similar trend may lie behind Job 14:14, where Job, after affirming the finality of individual death (14:12), still raises the question of a possible life after death. The basis for this notion rests on the affirmation that the living God, Job’s gracious redeemer, has power over death and will allow Job to see life after death (Job 19:25–26; cf. Ps. 16:10).

Daniel 12:2, which on the surface looks like a full-fledged teaching on individual resurrection, still falls short as a beneficial comparison to the teaching of Jesus. Although the Pharisees (along with a number of modern interpreters looking for OT foundations for individual resurrection) later used this as a proof text for individual resurrection, its context (Dan. 11) clearly suggests a struggle between nations, to which God eventually will reveal his eternal judgment. God will vindicate his people. Notwithstanding, OT language of eternal awakening to a new reality, good or bad, opens the door for further reflection on God’s eternal purpose and how it relates to human experience beyond death.

Intertestamental Period

The speculations of the intertestamental period portray a vast array of philosophical influences that affected the thinking of Second Temple Judaism. The conservative Sadducees, who may have accepted only the Torah as Scripture, understood Sheol (the state or abode of the dead) to be a place of unending sleep and thus denied resurrection (cf. Sir. 17:27–28; 30:17; Acts 23:8). Other groups, such as the Pharisees and the Essenes, were to a greater or lesser extent influenced by Hellenistic thinking on the relationship between spirit and matter. The lack of unity among these groups, especially the Pharisees, created a plethora of understandings concerning resurrection. Some, influenced by the Platonic idea that the soul/spirit is immortal and will be released at the death of the body, turned reflections on the afterlife into an issue of immortality (4 Macc. 14:5; 18:23). Others seem to have affirmed a physical resurrection but restricted it to either Israel or a righteous remnant thereof. This latter perspective easily connected to the view that all would be raised, the unrighteous for punishment, the righteous for reward and bliss.

It proves impossible, therefore, to determine to what extent Christian reflections during the first century influenced Jewish writers rather than vice versa. Sociologically speaking, the early Christians were one of the many parties of Judaism developing during that period. As the Gospels seem to suggest, they interacted, maybe especially, with the Pharisees.

New Testament

The OT’s relative silence on the issue of resurrection stands in stark contrast to the central position that it holds in the NT. All four Gospels build their narrative portrayal of Jesus’ ministry toward this climaxing event, and Jesus himself argued against the view of the Sadducees (Mark 12:18–27). Beyond the Gospel narratives, Paul makes resurrection the very heart of the Christian faith (1 Cor. 15); Hebrews understands resurrection as part of Christian elementary teaching (Heb. 6:1–2); James plays on the word “raise” as he explains the connection between faith and strength of life (James 5:15); Peter sees resurrection as the basis for Christian hope (1 Pet. 1:3); Revelation details the quality of the resurrected life (Rev. 21–22). In short, every part of the NT affirms the reality of a resurrection after death. It is the climactic evidence that God’s kingdom now dwells among people. God brings life; death will no longer have the last word.

The Gospels. The Gospels give four accounts of raisings from the dead. Strictly speaking, these are not resurrections but resuscitations. The people in question are not raised to eternal life but rather are brought back to life in their historical circumstances; they will later die again. The Gospels’ intertwining of the raising of Jairus’s daughter with the healing of the hemorrhaging woman (Mark 5:21–43 pars.) underscores the conceptual connection between life and God’s presence. First-century Judaism had come up bankrupt and could do nothing to help a woman whose bleeding made worship of God impossible. Now, however, life could be restored after death. Even the leader of the worship center, who could do nothing to help this woman, now saw his own daughter raised from the dead.

The raising of the widow’s son from Nain (Luke 7:11–17) similarly indicates that the days of the prophet Elijah had returned (1 Kings 17:8–24). God was again visiting his people and bringing life after death. Most spectacularly, Lazarus’s raising after four days in the grave (John 11:1–44) speaks directly to God’s power to bring life out of death in connection with OT understandings of the afterlife. The emphasis on the four days in the grave, along with Jesus’ pronouncement of himself as “resurrection and life” and his application of God’s revelatory name (“I am”) to himself, make this event stand out as anticipating what is soon to come in full. The same holds true in the unleashing of power at Jesus’ death, when graves spring open and the dead are raised (Matt. 27:51–53).

Paul’s letters. Paul’s teaching on resurrection anchors in eschatology, or vice versa. The reality and finality of death, introduced by Adam’s disobedience, are now overcome by Christ through his resurrection (1 Cor. 15:21–22). Christ’s resurrection evidences that God has ended death’s reign; it heralds the imminent coming of the end, a time when all who belong to Christ will be raised in like manner, and death will be no more (15:23–24).

Although at times Paul uses the language of body, soul, and spirit, he never falls prey to a Platonic dualism that separates body from soul, claiming that only the body dies while the soul remains immortal (1 Tim. 6:15b–16a). Rather, following Hebraic thinking, he understands resurrection as total transformation of the whole person, comparing it to what happens to a seed put in the ground. It must die before something completely new comes up (1 Cor. 15:36). The promise of resurrection is the promise that the death-marked human who is buried will, at the time of resurrection, be transformed and suited to live eternally in God’s presence. What is now perishable will become imperishable (1 Cor. 15:42–44). To Paul, this is not about getting rid of matter (the body) that is created by God, but about Christ’s restoration of what Adam destroyed (1 Cor. 15:49). It is the same understanding expressed in Rev. 21:1–5a, where John prophesies the transformation of both heaven and earth when God reestablishes his covenant relationship with his people.

Summary. Although the Gospels’ presentations of Jesus’ resurrection vary in some detail (probably due to purpose and audience), all of them treat the event as the theological centerpiece of the Gospel narrative. The resurrection story launches God’s eschatological work and opens the door, as the postresurrection appearances show, for a connection between the Jesus story and the church story. It is the foundation both for the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18–20) and for Pentecost (Luke 24:49). All people of all nations can now meet the living Christ.

Retribution refers to “giving what is due,” usually in response to evil. Retribution is an important theological doctrine whose significance is belied by scant use of the term in English translations (ESV 2×; NIV 6×; NRSV 9×). Retribution is driven by the theological conviction that moral order is built into the fabric of the world (Ps. 7:14–16; Prov. 26:27). This moral compass is guaranteed by God’s oversight, meting out justice in judgment and rewards to the righteous, not only on the human-human level, but also on the divine-human level (2 Cor. 9:6; Gal. 6:7). This biblical equation assures that (1) life is not overwhelmed by moral chaos, (2) human actions affect the future, (3) the world is morally uniform, and (4) human revenge is to be avoided (Lev. 19:17–18; Matt. 16:27; Rom. 12:19). With the human community in view, God’s commands are intended to instruct and guide. Not surprisingly, address of retribution is found throughout biblical literature: legal (Deut. 28), narrative (Num. 16), poetic (Pss. 18:20; 94:15), sapiential (Prov. 11:24–25), and prophetic (Hab. 2:2–20).

This poetic justice pervades the OT in the judgment and exile of Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:8–24), Cain’s sentence and blood revenge (Gen. 4:15, 24), and the worldwide flood and annihilation (Gen. 6–9) (cf. Exod. 21:20–21; Deut. 30:15–20; Josh. 7; Amos 3:14–15; Mic. 2:1–3). Such stories reveal a sovereign God acting as an external agent who exacts punishment in light of his intentions for creation. For Israel, retribution is the exercise of Yahweh’s legal rights in an attempt to restore covenant fellowship (Lev. 26:40–45). Although serious tensions exist—sometimes the wicked prosper and the innocent suffer—this does not alter the grand scheme of Scripture (Job 33; Jer. 12:1–4). In some scenarios, only the next lifetime will fully bring justice and reward (Ps. 49:5–15; Dan. 12:2; Matt. 25:31–46; Rev. 22:1–5). Deep wisdom, however, embraces mystery and understands the limits of human agency (Gen. 50:19–20; James 1:5).

While the notion of consequence may be too strong, the concept of correspondence is helpful for understanding the concept of retribution. God’s judgments reveal (1) a correspondence between act and effect, (2) accountability to known law, (3) a debt requiring resolve/restitution, and (4) punishment that reenacts elements of the sin itself. God’s roles as divine warrior, judge, and king proclaim his universal rule and preserve it from all who would mock or defy his royal authority (Gen. 3:14–19; Deut. 7:10; 1 Sam. 24:19; 2 Sam. 12:11–12; Ps. 149; Prov. 15:25; Mic. 5:15; 1 Cor. 16:22; Gal. 1:8–9; 2 Thess. 1:5–10).

God’s reasons for retribution center on disobedience and injustice, while his purposes are essentially restorative and developmental. Retribution is an application of God’s holiness that purifies the world for his kingdom of peace. In this way, vengeance and deliverance work together (Nah. 1:2, 7). Paradoxically, retribution gives hope to fallen humanity for sin acknowledged and unacknowledged, anticipating the triumph of righteousness (Ps. 58:11). Retribution grants rationality and stability to humanity, promotes closure in crisis, and fosters hope—a forerunner of the ultimate judgment before the throne of God the King.

In English, a distinction between the words “temptation,” “test,” and “trial” (or “tribulation”) seems apparent. However, the biblical Greek noun peirasmos and verb peirazō translate these nouns and their related verbs, leaving context alone to determine meaning. In the understanding of the Scripture, temptation relates directly to test and trial.

Negatively, English Bibles choose “temptation” and “tempt” as the fitting translation for peirasmos and peirazō respectively. The devil, or Satan, is the origin; the purpose is to encourage sin and devastate human relationship with God (Matt. 4:1 pars.; 1 Cor. 7:5; Gal. 6:1; 1 Tim. 6:9; James 1:13). Satan personifies this purpose as the tempter (Matt. 4:3; 1 Thess. 3:5).

Positively, the English word “test” seems fitting. God tests his people to reveal the quality of their faith commitment (Gen. 22:1; Exod. 15:25; Judg. 2:22; Gal. 4:14). When God tests his enemies, it results in a hardening of their hearts (Exod. 14:4). When God tests his own people, it may look like judgment (Isa. 6:9–10; cf. Mark 6:52; Heb. 3:8; 4:7). The NT sees a direct link between the words peirazō and dokimazō (“to test, prove, approve”) and uses one to explain the other (2 Cor. 13:5–7; James 1:2–3, 12).

Neutrally, “trial” (or “tribulation”) translates the meaning. People may face trials in their Christian walk (Acts 20:19; 2 Cor. 8:2; James 1:2, 12; 1 Pet. 1:6) that may or may not lead to sin (Matt. 26:41; cf. Dan. 12:10). The sixth petition of the Lord’s Prayer (Matt. 6:13 // Luke 11:4) presupposes the understanding that God is sovereign over all human circumstances and therefore has the power to protect from trials that may lead to temptation and fall. Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane follows the same supposition (Mark 14:38).

This interconnectedness in the biblical understanding between temptation, test, and trial helps to explain some inherently difficult texts. There can be no sharp distinction made between temptation and test; God may use someone’s tribulation as a test to affirm faith, while Satan uses the same as an avenue for temptation to commit sin. A prime OT example of such interconnectedness is the parallel texts in 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles that describe David as both tested by God (2 Sam. 24:1) and tempted by Satan (1 Chron. 21:1) in regard to taking a census of Israel.

When humans tempt/test God, they provoke him to prove his power (Exod. 17:1–7) by acting as if he does not exist (Ps. 14:1). God’s firm prohibition against this (Deut. 6:13–16) exposes it as a violation of his relationship with humans (Matt. 4:7; Acts 5:9; 15:10).

In English, a distinction between the words “temptation,” “test,” and “trial” (or “tribulation”) seems apparent. However, the biblical Greek noun peirasmos and verb peirazō translate these nouns and their related verbs, leaving context alone to determine meaning. In the understanding of the Scripture, temptation relates directly to test and trial.

Negatively, English Bibles choose “temptation” and “tempt” as the fitting translation for peirasmos and peirazō respectively. The devil, or Satan, is the origin; the purpose is to encourage sin and devastate human relationship with God (Matt. 4:1 pars.; 1 Cor. 7:5; Gal. 6:1; 1 Tim. 6:9; James 1:13). Satan personifies this purpose as the tempter (Matt. 4:3; 1 Thess. 3:5).

Positively, the English word “test” seems fitting. God tests his people to reveal the quality of their faith commitment (Gen. 22:1; Exod. 15:25; Judg. 2:22; Gal. 4:14). When God tests his enemies, it results in a hardening of their hearts (Exod. 14:4). When God tests his own people, it may look like judgment (Isa. 6:9–10; cf. Mark 6:52; Heb. 3:8; 4:7). The NT sees a direct link between the words peirazō and dokimazō (“to test, prove, approve”) and uses one to explain the other (2 Cor. 13:5–7; James 1:2–3, 12).

Neutrally, “trial” (or “tribulation”) translates the meaning. People may face trials in their Christian walk (Acts 20:19; 2 Cor. 8:2; James 1:2, 12; 1 Pet. 1:6) that may or may not lead to sin (Matt. 26:41; cf. Dan. 12:10). The sixth petition of the Lord’s Prayer (Matt. 6:13 // Luke 11:4) presupposes the understanding that God is sovereign over all human circumstances and therefore has the power to protect from trials that may lead to temptation and fall. Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane follows the same supposition (Mark 14:38).

This interconnectedness in the biblical understanding between temptation, test, and trial helps to explain some inherently difficult texts. There can be no sharp distinction made between temptation and test; God may use someone’s tribulation as a test to affirm faith, while Satan uses the same as an avenue for temptation to commit sin. A prime OT example of such interconnectedness is the parallel texts in 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles that describe David as both tested by God (2 Sam. 24:1) and tempted by Satan (1 Chron. 21:1) in regard to taking a census of Israel.

When humans tempt/test God, they provoke him to prove his power (Exod. 17:1–7) by acting as if he does not exist (Ps. 14:1). God’s firm prohibition against this (Deut. 6:13–16) exposes it as a violation of his relationship with humans (Matt. 4:7; Acts 5:9; 15:10).

In English, a distinction between the words “temptation,” “test,” and “trial” (or “tribulation”) seems apparent. However, the biblical Greek noun peirasmos and verb peirazō translate these nouns and their related verbs, leaving context alone to determine meaning. In the understanding of the Scripture, temptation relates directly to test and trial.

Negatively, English Bibles choose “temptation” and “tempt” as the fitting translation for peirasmos and peirazō respectively. The devil, or Satan, is the origin; the purpose is to encourage sin and devastate human relationship with God (Matt. 4:1 pars.; 1 Cor. 7:5; Gal. 6:1; 1 Tim. 6:9; James 1:13). Satan personifies this purpose as the tempter (Matt. 4:3; 1 Thess. 3:5).

Positively, the English word “test” seems fitting. God tests his people to reveal the quality of their faith commitment (Gen. 22:1; Exod. 15:25; Judg. 2:22; Gal. 4:14). When God tests his enemies, it results in a hardening of their hearts (Exod. 14:4). When God tests his own people, it may look like judgment (Isa. 6:9–10; cf. Mark 6:52; Heb. 3:8; 4:7). The NT sees a direct link between the words peirazō and dokimazō (“to test, prove, approve”) and uses one to explain the other (2 Cor. 13:5–7; James 1:2–3, 12).

Neutrally, “trial” (or “tribulation”) translates the meaning. People may face trials in their Christian walk (Acts 20:19; 2 Cor. 8:2; James 1:2, 12; 1 Pet. 1:6) that may or may not lead to sin (Matt. 26:41; cf. Dan. 12:10). The sixth petition of the Lord’s Prayer (Matt. 6:13 // Luke 11:4) presupposes the understanding that God is sovereign over all human circumstances and therefore has the power to protect from trials that may lead to temptation and fall. Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane follows the same supposition (Mark 14:38).

This interconnectedness in the biblical understanding between temptation, test, and trial helps to explain some inherently difficult texts. There can be no sharp distinction made between temptation and test; God may use someone’s tribulation as a test to affirm faith, while Satan uses the same as an avenue for temptation to commit sin. A prime OT example of such interconnectedness is the parallel texts in 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles that describe David as both tested by God (2 Sam. 24:1) and tempted by Satan (1 Chron. 21:1) in regard to taking a census of Israel.

When humans tempt/test God, they provoke him to prove his power (Exod. 17:1–7) by acting as if he does not exist (Ps. 14:1). God’s firm prohibition against this (Deut. 6:13–16) exposes it as a violation of his relationship with humans (Matt. 4:7; Acts 5:9; 15:10).

In English, a distinction between the words “temptation,” “test,” and “trial” (or “tribulation”) seems apparent. However, the biblical Greek noun peirasmos and verb peirazō translate these nouns and their related verbs, leaving context alone to determine meaning. In the understanding of the Scripture, temptation relates directly to test and trial.

Negatively, English Bibles choose “temptation” and “tempt” as the fitting translation for peirasmos and peirazō respectively. The devil, or Satan, is the origin; the purpose is to encourage sin and devastate human relationship with God (Matt. 4:1 pars.; 1 Cor. 7:5; Gal. 6:1; 1 Tim. 6:9; James 1:13). Satan personifies this purpose as the tempter (Matt. 4:3; 1 Thess. 3:5).

Positively, the English word “test” seems fitting. God tests his people to reveal the quality of their faith commitment (Gen. 22:1; Exod. 15:25; Judg. 2:22; Gal. 4:14). When God tests his enemies, it results in a hardening of their hearts (Exod. 14:4). When God tests his own people, it may look like judgment (Isa. 6:9–10; cf. Mark 6:52; Heb. 3:8; 4:7). The NT sees a direct link between the words peirazō and dokimazō (“to test, prove, approve”) and uses one to explain the other (2 Cor. 13:5–7; James 1:2–3, 12).

Neutrally, “trial” (or “tribulation”) translates the meaning. People may face trials in their Christian walk (Acts 20:19; 2 Cor. 8:2; James 1:2, 12; 1 Pet. 1:6) that may or may not lead to sin (Matt. 26:41; cf. Dan. 12:10). The sixth petition of the Lord’s Prayer (Matt. 6:13 // Luke 11:4) presupposes the understanding that God is sovereign over all human circumstances and therefore has the power to protect from trials that may lead to temptation and fall. Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane follows the same supposition (Mark 14:38).

This interconnectedness in the biblical understanding between temptation, test, and trial helps to explain some inherently difficult texts. There can be no sharp distinction made between temptation and test; God may use someone’s tribulation as a test to affirm faith, while Satan uses the same as an avenue for temptation to commit sin. A prime OT example of such interconnectedness is the parallel texts in 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles that describe David as both tested by God (2 Sam. 24:1) and tempted by Satan (1 Chron. 21:1) in regard to taking a census of Israel.

When humans tempt/test God, they provoke him to prove his power (Exod. 17:1–7) by acting as if he does not exist (Ps. 14:1). God’s firm prohibition against this (Deut. 6:13–16) exposes it as a violation of his relationship with humans (Matt. 4:7; Acts 5:9; 15:10).