The Amalekites inhabited the Negev territory south of Judah (Num. 13:29). Amalek is described as “first among the nations” (Num. 24:20 [cf. 1 Sam. 27:8]); indeed, one story about it is set prior to the lifetime of its eponymous ancestor, Amalek (Gen. 14:7). The OT represents the Amalekites as descended from Esau and thus related to the Edomites (Gen. 36:12, 16). Several texts refer to “the Amalekites and Canaanites,” suggesting that the former were not considered a Canaanite people (e.g., Num. 14:45).

The history of relations between the Amalekites and the Israelites is one of perpetual hostility. The Amalekites attacked the Israelites shortly after the Red Sea crossing. The outcome of the battle included a declaration of perpetual war between the Amalekites and the God of Israel (Exod. 17:8–16; Deut. 25:17–19). There were several subsequent conflicts (Num. 14:45; Judg. 3:13; 6:3, 33; 7:12; 10:12), continuing in the campaigns of Saul (1 Sam. 15:1–9) and David (1 Sam. 27:8; 30:16–20).

The final chapter in the historic struggle between Israel and the Amalekites is Mordecai and Esther’s confrontation with Haman, who is identified as an “Agagite”—that is, a descendant of Agag, the Amalekite king spared by Saul (Esther 3:1; cf. 1 Sam. 15:8).

The Amalekites inhabited the Negev territory south of Judah (Num. 13:29). Amalek is described as “first among the nations” (Num. 24:20 [cf. 1 Sam. 27:8]); indeed, one story about it is set prior to the lifetime of its eponymous ancestor, Amalek (Gen. 14:7). The OT represents the Amalekites as descended from Esau and thus related to the Edomites (Gen. 36:12, 16). Several texts refer to “the Amalekites and Canaanites,” suggesting that the former were not considered a Canaanite people (e.g., Num. 14:45).

The history of relations between the Amalekites and the Israelites is one of perpetual hostility. The Amalekites attacked the Israelites shortly after the Red Sea crossing. The outcome of the battle included a declaration of perpetual war between the Amalekites and the God of Israel (Exod. 17:8–16; Deut. 25:17–19). There were several subsequent conflicts (Num. 14:45; Judg. 3:13; 6:3, 33; 7:12; 10:12), continuing in the campaigns of Saul (1 Sam. 15:1–9) and David (1 Sam. 27:8; 30:16–20).

The final chapter in the historic struggle between Israel and the Amalekites is Mordecai and Esther’s confrontation with Haman, who is identified as an “Agagite”—that is, a descendant of Agag, the Amalekite king spared by Saul (Esther 3:1; cf. 1 Sam. 15:8).

The descendants of Anak, the Anakites (NRSV: “Anakim”), known for their height (Deut. 2:10, 21; 9:2), inhabited the Judean hill country when Israelite spies entered the land (Num. 13:21–33; Deut. 1:28). The spies viewed them as Nephilim (Num. 13:33; cf. Gen. 6:4). Arba, a hero among the Anakites, gave his name to Kiriath Arba (Josh. 14:15), later Hebron (Josh. 15:13–14; Judg. 1:20). The Anakites were related to the Rephaites, originally from the regions of Moab and Ammon but destroyed by the time of the conquest (Deut. 2:10–11, 20–21). After Joshua completely destroyed Anakite habitations in the hill country, remnants moved westward and lived in the Philistine cities of Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod (Josh. 11:21–22).

(1) One of the twelve spies sent into the Promised Land by Moses (Num. 13:1–14:45). He represented the tribe of Judah. When the spies returned, they reported that the land was beautiful and fertile, flowing with “milk and honey.” However, they also described the inhabitants as fearsome and dangerous. The majority of the spies gave a counsel of despair, saying, “We can’t attack those people; they are stronger than we are” (Num. 13:31). Caleb, supported by Joshua of Ephraim, gave a minority report, advising that they attack the land. The advice of the ten spies convinced the people who lacked faith in God’s ability to give them victory. In response to their complaints, God determined that the generation of Israelites who came out of Egypt would die in the wilderness. Thus, they spent forty years wandering before they were permitted to enter the land. The faithful spies, Caleb and Joshua, were exceptions, the only ones in their generation allowed to actually enter the Promised Land.

Caleb was forty when he served as a spy and eighty-five at the time the land began to be distributed to the tribes. Caleb came forward and asked that Joshua give him the land around Hebron. To actually possess the city, he successfully drove out the dreaded Anakites, who particularly put terror in the hearts of the Israelites (Josh. 14:6–15; 15:13–15).

(2) A descendant of Ju­dah through Perez and Hezron (1 Chron. 2:9, 18–20).

Cities commonly were built on a hill (for protection) near water, arable land for crops, and a regional highway for trade—all necessities for survival and growth. Biblical cities often were fortified with walls, gates, towers, and internal water systems, all of which allowed for a strong defense against enemies. Ancient city walls in Syria-Palestine often were casemates. Casemate walls were hollow on the inside and had rooms in them. The back room (and back wall) of a house was a part of the wall. This type of wall is revealed in the account at Jericho, where Rahab lets the spies down from her house through a window in the wall (Josh. 2:15). In the ninth and eighth centuries BC, when confronted with strong enemy battering rams, defenders filled casemate walls with dirt and/or stone.

When the Israelites came to spy out the land of Canaan for conquest, they anxiously noted that the cities were “large, with walls up to the sky” (Deut. 1:28; cf. Num. 13:28). This was the result of the city walls being built on top of a hill or mound, making them look even more imposing.

Solomon built Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer, all with the same size and shape six-chamber gate system (1 Kings 9:15; cf. 2 Chron. 8:4–6). Solomon’s son Rehoboam built fortified cities and a system of fortresses (2 Chron. 11:5–12). King Asa of Judah fortified Geba and Mizpah as border cities against the northern kingdom (1 Kings 15:22).

Various terms in the OT have been interpreted as references to giants. “Anakim,” “Emim,” and “Zamzummim” (ESV, NRSV, NKJV; NIV: “Anakites,” “Emites,” “Zamzummites”) are the names designated by individual nations (i.e., the Israelites, the Moabites, and the Ammonites) for the giant aboriginal inhabitants of their respective territories (Num. 13:31–33; Deut. 2:10–21). “Rephaim” and “Nephilim,” on the other hand, are more general designations that are not necessarily restricted to specific territories. The two terms are difficult to define, but they seem to designate certain types of people such as those with legendary qualities or reputation (Gen. 6:4; Num. 13:33; Deut. 2:11; 3:11; 1 Chron. 20:4). Thus, Rephaim and Nephilim are not necessarily people of gigantic proportions, but a gigantic person would certainly be regarded among them (Num. 13:33; Deut. 2:11; 3:11). It is likely that all these terms had pejorative meanings (e.g., “Nephilim” might literally mean “fallen ones”). Furthermore, these terms share a common literary function in that they designate people who must be destroyed or displaced. Their demise was something that God required or even executed himself (e.g., Deut. 2:21; 9:1–6; Amos 2:9).

Some scholars have theorized that the biblical references to giants are a form of military hyperbole, or that they are embellished legends stemming from the sight of megalithic structures, but these theories fail to account for the fact that the Bible represents giants as living simultaneously (and interacting) with the Israelites. The Bible even preserves the personal names of giants such as “Og,” “Talmai,” and “Goliath.” Although no gigantic skeletal remains have yet been recovered from excavations, there is some evidence for giants in Egyptian texts. Papyrus Anastasi I describes Canaanites who were four or five cubits tall (i.e., between 7 and 8.5 feet) in the late thirteenth century BC. The Execration texts also refer to a place called “Anaq” (cf. “Anakim”) in southern Canaan (c. 1800 BC).

The name “Hittite” derives from the name of the Hittite homeland: Hatti. The Bible refers to “children (daughters) of Heth” and “Hittite” or “Hittites.”

Historical overview. Hittite precursors appeared in Anatolia (Turkey) during the third millennium. Of unknown origin, their language was Indo-European rather than Semitic like Hebrew. During the second millennium a Hittite kingdom emerged, with Hattusa (modern Bogazkale) as its capital. Hattusili I (c. 1650 BC) was the first Hittite king of historical rec-ord. He gained control of the trade routes and eliminated regional threats. He also established a Hittite law code, and under him Hittite literature flourished. His son, Mursili I, sacked Babylon, ending Hammurabi’s dynasty (1595 BC).

Hittite influence greatly increased under Tadhaliya II (c. 1400 BC) and especially under Suppiluliuma I (c. 1350 BC). At its height, the Hittite Empire spanned from central Anatolia to northern Syria (including Ugarit and Amurru), controlling various vassal states. The Hittites skirmished briefly with Egypt over territory in northern Syria (Muwatalli II engaged Ramesses II at Qadesh in 1275 BC), and then followed a period of negotiated peace and increased contact between the two kingdoms. In contrast, dealings with Assyria, typically strained, eventually led to defeat and loss of Hittite territory (late thirteenth century).

Shortly thereafter, the Hittite Empire, weakened by uprisings and defections among its territories, succumbed to the upheavals of the period. In its wake rose numerous minor states (e.g., Karkamis and Hamath) that saw themselves as successors to the Hittite Empire and perpetuated Hittite culture. These are referred to collectively as the Neo-Hittite states; Karkamis was the last to fall to the Neo-Assyrians (717 BC).

Hittites in the Bible. According to the Bible, the Hittites descended from Canaan (Gen. 10:15; 1 Chron. 1:13 [the NIV reads “Hittites” for the proper name “Heth”) and were destined to be subjugated—for example, by the Israelites (see Gen. 9:25–27). Genesis portrays the patriarchs in regular contact with Hittites, through which we learn of several Hittite individuals. Abraham purchased a cave and surrounding field from “Ephron the Hittite” (Gen. 23). Esau took Hittite wives (27:46); however, discrepancies exist concerning their names and ethnicities (cf. 26:34; 28:9; 36:2–3).

The OT consistently mentions the Hittites among those peoples whom the Israelites would dispossess upon entering the promised land (Gen. 15:18–21; Exod. 3:8). Yahweh vowed to drive them out before the Israelites (Exod. 23:28 [cf. v. 23]), while the Israelites were instructed to eradicate their presence from the land (Deut. 7:1–2; 20:17). The Israelites only partly succeeded, eventually settling among the other peoples (Judg. 3:5–6).

During this time, the Hittites are depicted as occupying the central hill country between the coastal plain to the west and the Dead Sea to the east (Num. 13:29; Josh. 9:1), though Josh. 1:4 refers to the entire region of Canaan and Transjordan as “the Hittite country.” This perhaps recalls Hittite influence upon the region, revealing a generic or political (versus ethnic) use of the term.

Further references pertain to the monarchic period. David had several close Hittite associates: Ahimelek, of whom nothing else is known (1 Sam. 26:6), and Uriah, Bathsheba’s husband and a member of David’s bodyguard (2 Sam. 11:3; 23:39). Under Solomon’s reign Hittites were conscripted for forced labor (1 Kings 9:20). Solomon also conducted trade between Egypt and Hittite states to the north (10:29), taking for himself Hittite wives (11:1). The final reference to extant Hittites comes from Joram’s reign, in the mid-ninth century BC (2 Kings 7:6).

During the exile and afterward, the Hittites became a byword (Ezek. 16:3, 45), exemplifying practices from which pious Jews sought to distance themselves (Ezra 9:1).

Conclusions. Identification of the biblical Hittites with those of Anatolia remains problematic. Clearly, Israel had contact with later Neo-Hittite states during its monarchic period (see 2 Sam. 8:9–10; 1 Kings 10:29; 11:1). Nevertheless, archaeology does not support a Hittite presence in the Judean hill country at the time of the conquest. Thus, the biblical Hittites may have been an unrelated, unidentified people inhabiting Canaan; alternately, “Hittites” (and the like) may have conveyed rhetorically the idea of “otherness, inferiority” (already anticipated by Gen. 9–10; cf. Ezek. 16:3, 45; Ezra 9:1).

One of the things that make Israel a “good land” (Gen. 43:11; Deut. 8:7–10; Prov. 24:13), honey is a sweet aliment produced by bees or derived from flowers, and it has the unique quality of never spoiling (Ps. 19:10; Prov. 27:7; Ezek. 3:1; Rev. 10:9). The psalmist compares God’s word to the sweetness of honey (Ps. 119:103), and the sages liken the words of an adulteress to honey (Prov. 5:3). The biblical expression “land of milk and honey” refers to uncultivated land, which was ideal for the free growth of flowers and grazing (e.g., Exod. 3:8; Lev. 20:24; Num. 13:27). John the Baptist incorporated wild honey, along with locusts, into his diet, perhaps as a way of avoiding tithes to the temple, which were levied upon all cultivated food, but also to demonstrate God’s provision even in the wilderness (Matt. 3:4, 7).

“Kadesh” means “holy” or “sacred.” This city was located between the Wilderness of Paran and the Wilderness of Zin in the northeast of Sinai (Num. 20:1; 33:36). It is first mentioned by the name “En Mishpat” (“spring of judgment”)—within the context of the war of four kings (Amraphel of Shinar, Arioch of Ellasar, Kedorlaomer of Elam, and Tidal of Goyim) against five kings (Bera of Sodom, Birsha of Gomorrah, Shinab of Admah, Shemeber of Zeboyim, and the king of Zoar)—as the area where Kedorlaomer and his allies defeated the Amalekites. Abraham joined in this conflict to rescue Lot from being taken captive (Gen. 14:1–16).

Hagar, the Egyptian servant of Sarai, fled to a spring in the wilderness between Kadesh and Bered after she was found to have conceived a child by Abram. It was here that she received the promise of Ishmael’s birth (Gen. 16:11–14).

Moses sent the twelve spies out from Kadesh to survey the promised land of Canaan. The negative report of ten of those spies caused the people to hesitate to take the land (Num. 13:26). For this lack of faith, the Israelites were required to wander in the wilderness for forty years, spending thirty-eight of those years at Kadesh (Deut. 2:14). It was here that Moses’ sister Miriam died and was buried (Num. 20:1).

At Kadesh the Israelites complained about their lack of water (Num. 20:2–5). Moses was instructed by God to take his staff and to tell the rock to yield water (20:6–8). But instead, Moses struck the rock with his staff twice. The water flowed out abundantly, but Moses was punished for his disobedience by not being allowed to bring the Israelites into the land (20:11–12).

The Israelites were encamped at Kadesh when the king of Edom denied them passage through his land (Num. 20:14–21). The site eventually became the southern border of the territory allotted to the tribe of Judah (Josh. 15:1–3).

The Hebrew word ’erets occurs 2,505 times in the OT and is most frequently translated “country” or “land.” “Earth” renders the Greek word gē in the NT. Not surprisingly, ’erets appears 311 times in Genesis alone, the book that initiates Israel’s landed covenant (Gen. 15:18). The primary uses of ’erets are cosmological (e.g., the earth) and geographical (e.g., the land of Israel). Other uses of ’erets include physical (e.g., the ground on which one stands) and political (e.g., governed countries) designations. Less frequently, “earth” translates the Hebrew word ’adamah (“country, ground, land, soil”).

Heaven and Earth

Israel shared the cosmology of its ancient Near Eastern neighbors. This worldview understood the earth as a “disk” upon the primeval waters (Job 38:13; Isa. 40:22), with the earth having four rims or “corners” (Ps. 135:7; Isa. 11:12). These rims were sealed at the horizon to prevent the influx of cosmic waters. God speaks to Job about the dawn grasping the edges of the earth and shaking the evil people out of it (Job 38:12–13). Similarly, the Akkadian text Hymn to the Sun-God states, “You [Shamash] are holding the ends of the earth suspended from the midst of heaven” (I:22). The earth’s boundaries were set against chaos (Ps. 104:7–9; Isa. 40:12). In this way, the Creator and the Savior cannot be separated because, taken together, God works against chaos in the mission of redemption (Ps. 74:12–17; Isa. 51:9–11). The phrase “heavens and earth” is a merism (two extremes representing the whole) for the entire universe (Gen. 1:1; Ps. 102:25). Over the earth arched a firm “vault” (Gen. 1:6). Heaven’s vault rested on the earth’s “pillars,” the mountains (Deut. 32:22; 1 Sam. 2:8). Below the heavens is the sea, part of the earth’s flat surface.

There was no term for “world” in the OT. The perception of world was basically bipartite (heaven and earth), though some tripartite expressions also occur (e.g., heaven, earth, sea [Exod. 20:11; Rev. 5:3, 13]). Though rare, some uses of ’erets may refer to the “underworld” or Sheol (Exod. 15:12; Jer. 17:13; Jon. 2:6). The earth can be regarded as the realm of the dead (Matt. 12:40; Eph. 4:9). However, the OT is less concerned with the organic structure of the earth than with what fills the earth: inhabitants (Ps. 33:14; Isa. 24:1), people groups (Gen. 18:18; Deut. 28:10), and kingdoms (Deut. 28:25; 2 Kings 19:15). The term ’erets can be used symbolically to indicate its inhabitants (Gen. 6:11). However, unlike its neighbors, Israel acknowledged no divine “Mother Earth,” given the cultural associations with female consorts.

The Theology of Land

In biblical faith, the concept of land combines geography with theology. The modern person values land more as a place to build than for its productive capacities. But from the outset, human beings and the “earth” (’erets) functioned in a symbiotic relationship with the Creator (Gen. 1:28). God even gave the land agency to “bring forth living creatures” (Gen. 1:24). The “ground” (’adamah) also provided the raw substance to make the human being (’adam [Gen. 2:7]). In turn, the human being was charged with developing and protecting the land (Gen. 2:5, 15). Showing divine care, the Noahic covenant was “between [God] and the earth” (Gen. 9:13). Thus, land was no mere onlooker; human rebellion had cosmic effects (Gen. 6:7, 17). The land could be cursed and suffer (Gen. 3:17; cf. 4:11).

Israel’s promised land was built on the sanctuary prototype of Eden (Gen. 13:10; Deut. 6:3; 31:20); both were defined by divine blessing, fertility, legal instruction, secure boundaries, and were orienting points for the world. Canaan was Israel’s new paradise, “flowing with milk and honey” (Exod. 3:8; Num. 13:27). Conversely, the lack of fertile land was tantamount to insecurity and judgment. As Eden illustrated for Israel, any rupture of relationship with God brought alienation between humans, God, and the land; this could ultimately bring exile, as an ethically nauseated land “vomits” people out (Lev. 18:25, 28; 20:22; see also Deut. 4; 30).

For Israel, land involved both God’s covenant promise (Gen. 15:18–21; 35:9–12) and the nation’s faithful obedience (Gen. 17:1; Exod. 19:5; 1 Kings 2:1–4). Conditionality and unconditionality coexisted in Israel’s relationship of “sonship” with Yahweh (Exod. 4:22; Hos. 11:1). Yahweh was the earth’s Lord (Ps. 97:5), Judge (Gen. 18:25), and King (Ps. 47:2, 7). Both owner and giver, he was the supreme landlord, who gifted the land to Israel (Exod. 19:5; Lev. 25:23; Josh. 22:19; Ps. 24:1). The land was God’s “inheritance” to give (1 Sam. 26:19; 2 Sam. 14:16; Ps. 79:1; Jer. 2:7). The Levites, however, did not receive an allotment of land as did the other tribes, since God was their “portion” (Num. 18:20; Ps. 73:26). Israel’s obedience was necessary both to enter and to occupy the land (Deut. 8:1–3; 11:8–9; 21:1; 27:1–3). Ironically, the earth swallowed rebellious Israelites when they accused Moses of bringing them “up out of a land flowing with milk and honey” (Num. 16:13). As the conquest shows, however, no tribe was completely obedient, taking its full “inheritance” (Josh. 13:1).

Land possession had serious ethical and religious ramifications (Deut. 26:1–11). Israel was not chosen to receive a special land; rather, land was the medium of Israel’s relationship with God. Land functioned as a spiritual barometer (Ps. 78:56–64; Lam. 1:3–5). The heavens and earth stood as covenant witnesses (Deut. 4:26). Blood, in particular, could physically pollute the land (Num. 35:30–34). National sin could culminate in expulsion (Lev. 26:32–39), and eventually the land was lost (Jer. 25:1–11). For this reason, Israel’s exiles prompted a profound theological crisis.

Inheritance

The notion of inheritance connected Israel’s religious worship with practical stewardship. Land was not owned; it was passed down through patrimonial succession. God entrusted each family with an inheritance that was to be safeguarded (Lev. 25:23–28; Mic. 2:1–2). This highlights the serious crime when Naboth’s vineyard was forcibly stolen (1 Kings 21). It was Israel’s filial sonship with Yahweh and Israel’s land tenure that formed Yahweh’s solidarity with the nation. The law helped limit Israel’s attachment to mere real estate: Yahweh was to be Israel’s preoccupation (see Jer. 3:6–25). When the nation was finally exiled, the message of the new covenant transcended geographical boundaries (Jer. 32:36–44; Ezek. 36–37; cf. Lev. 26:40–45; Deut. 30:1–10). In postexilic Israel, sanctuary was prioritized (Hag. 1:9–14).

It was Israel’s redefinition of land through the exile that prepared the way for the incorporation of the Gentiles (Ezek. 47:22–23), an integration already anticipated (Isa. 56:3–7). The prophets saw a time when the nations would share in the inheritance of God previously guarded by Israel (Isa. 60; Zech. 2:11; cf. Gen. 12:3). Viewed as a political territory, land receives no substantial theological treatment in the NT; rather, inheritance surpasses covenant metaphor. Using the language of sonship and inheritance, Paul develops this new Gentile mission in Galatians (cf. Col. 1:13–14). The OT land motif fully flowers in the NT teaching of adoption (cf. 1 Pet. 1:3–5). Both curse and covenant are resolved eschatologically (Rom. 8:19–22). Inheritance is now found in Christ (Eph. 2:11–22; 1 Pet. 1:4). In the economy of the new covenant, land tenure has matured in fellowship (koinōnia). Koinōnia recalibrates the ethical significance of OT land themes, reapplying them practically through inclusion, lifestyle, economic responsibility, and social equity.

Beyond cosmological realms, heaven and earth are also theological horizons still under God’s ownership. What began as the creation mandate to fill and subdue the earth (Gen. 1:28) culminates in the new creation with Christ (Rom. 8:4–25). Under the power of Satan, the earth “lags behind” heaven. Christ’s mission brings what is qualitatively of heaven onto the earthly stage, often using signs of the budding rule of God (Matt. 6:10; Mark 2:10–11; John 3:31–36; Eph. 4:9–13; Heb. 12:25). As Israel was to stand out in a hostile world (Deut. 4:5–8), now those of Abrahamic faith stand out through Christian love (John 13:34–35; Rom. 4:9–16). According to Heb. 4:1–11, Israel’s initial rest in the land (see Exod. 33:14; Deut. 12:9) culminates in the believers’ rest in Christ (Heb. 4:3, 5). The former inheritance of space gives way to the inheritance of Christ’s presence. The OT theme of land is ultimately fulfilled in Jesus’ exhortation to “abide in me” (John 15).

Earthquake–In Palestine there have been about seventeen recorded major earthquakes in the past two millennia. One of the major sources of these earthquakes is believed to originate from the Jordan Rift Valley. In antiquity earthquakes were viewed as fearful events because the mountains, which represented everlasting durability, were disturbed. The confession of faith is pronounced in association with such phenomena (“We will not fear, though the earth give way” [Ps. 46:2]). An earthquake must have made a great impact in Amos’s day (“two years before the earthquake” [Amos 1:1; cf. Zech. 14:5]).

An earthquake has many symbolic meanings. First, the power of God and his divine presence are manifested through it (Job 9:6; Ps. 68:8; Hag. 2:6). It accompanied theophanic revelation (Exod. 19:18; Isa. 6:4; 1 Kings 19:11–12) when the glory of the Lord appeared (Ezek. 3:12). His divine presence was especially felt when earthquakes occurred during the time of the crucifixion and the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Matt. 27:54; 28:2). It led the centurion to confess of Christ, “Surely he was the Son of God!” (Matt. 27:54). God’s salvation power is represented when an earthquake comes at the appropriate moment, such as when it freed Paul and Silas from prison (Acts 16:26).

Second, it is used in the context of God’s judgment (Isa. 13:13; Amos 9:1; Nah. 1:5). It becomes the symbol of God’s anger and wrath (Ps. 18:7). God brought earthquakes upon the people to destroy evil in the world and to punish those who had sinned against him (Num. 16:31–33; Isa. 29:6; Ezek. 38:19). Earthquake activity possibly explains the background to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19:24).

Third, earthquakes are said to precede the end of time (Matt. 24:7; Mark 13:8; Luke 21:11). In the apocalyptic book of Revelation, earthquakes are regular occurrences (Rev. 6:12; 11:13, 19; 16:18).

A region generally identified with the landmass between ancient Syria and Egypt, including parts of the Sinai Peninsula, Palestine from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean, and southern Phoenicia (modern Lebanon). Although there is some discussion about the origin of the name “Canaan” and its meaning, the name apparently arises from the primary inhabitants of the region prior to Joshua’s incursion into the land, since it is primarily used in connection with the phrase “the land of,” indicating that the descendants of Canaan possess it. Because the identity of the land of Canaan was linked as much to its inhabitants as it was to any sort of fixed borders, the boundaries are identified in various ways throughout the biblical text. Such descriptions vary from a rather limited area of influence (as suggested by Num. 13:29) to a larger land spanning an area from the Euphrates to the Nile (Gen. 15:18; Exod. 23:23). Because of its strategic position as a buffer between Egypt and Mesopotamia and between Arabia and the sea, it served as a primary trading outpost and the location of numerous important historical events both prior to and after Israel’s appearance in the land.

In the Bible, the geographical reference “the land of Canaan” finds primary expression, not surprisingly, in Genesis through Judges. The promise to Abraham that his descendants would inherit the land of the Canaanites (Gen. 15:18–21) is the theological focal point of the uses of the term “Canaan” throughout these biblical books. Once that inheritance was achieved and Israel became a viable state, the term’s use seems to serve the double purpose of being both a geographical marker and a reminder of the nature of its former predominant inhabitants. The prophets drew upon the term to remind Israel of the land’s former status, both in its positive (Isa. 19:18) and negative (Isa. 23:11; Zeph. 2:5) connotations. The term is transliterated twice in the NT in the recounting of OT history (Acts 7:11; 13:19). One further connection between Canaan and the perspectives communicated concerning it in the OT is the apparent association of the land with corrupt trade practices. That is, while some believe that the word “Canaan” always meant “merchant” or some similar word, its use in Scripture suggests that the tradesmen of Canaan were of such disrepute in the recollection of ancient Israel that the term became a synonym for “unjust trader” (Job 41:6; Ezek. 16:29; 17:4; Zeph. 1:11; Zech. 14:21).

History

The proximity of Canaan to Egypt meant that from its earliest periods it found itself beholden to the pharaohs of Egypt. The Egyptian Execration texts from the Old Kingdom era tell of Egypt’s influence over Canaan in the early second millennium. After the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt, the pharaohs of the New Kingdom asserted their control over the land. Most famous among these records is Thutmose III’s account of his defeat of Megiddo through the implementation of both cunning and skill. This same pharaoh would establish a system of dividing Canaan and its inhabitants for taxation and administration that would be so successful that Solomon would reimplement the same system during his reign (1 Kings 4:7–19). Even in the weaker days of Egypt following the New Kingdom, pharaohs such as Necho and Shishak and their successors the Ptolemies would often seek to revisit the days of glory in campaigns into Canaan.

In addition to Egypt, other outside forces found their way into Canaan and exerted influence on its development. The earliest settlers seem to have come from Mesopotamia, and Semitic influence is witnessed as early as 3000 BC. In the period between Egypt’s control of Canaan during the Old Kingdom and its later reassertion after expelling the Hyksos, Canaan witnessed a massive influx of Amorites from the north and also incursions by the Hittites and the Hurrians. As Egypt’s power waned toward the end of the New Kingdom, the Philistines came in from the sea and the Israelites from across the Jordan. All these societies were absorbed into the Canaanite culture or were themselves modified by the Canaanites. Israelite success in removing mention of the Canaanites as an identifiable entity would not be firmly established until late in the eighth century under Hezekiah.

The story of Israel’s predominance in the area of Canaan begins, of course, with the infiltration into the land under Joshua and persists until the fall of the temple in AD 70 at the hands of the Romans. During that period, Canaan endured as a place of importance as a staging ground for controlling both Mesopotamia and Egypt and therefore witnessed campaigns by most of the great leaders of Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome. Of course, with each campaign came alterations in both the political and the cultural landscape of the land and reinforcement of the view that the area was the center of the world. Indeed, it is in Canaan, in the Jezreel Valley, that Scripture turns its focus for the final battle between God and the forces of Satan at Armageddon.

Geography and Climate

Geography. Though small in scope, the region of Canaan encompassed a surprisingly wide variety of environments. Within its topography one could find perilous deserts, snow-capped mountains, thick forests, lush plains, coastal beaches, rugged hills, deep valleys, and separate water sources full of both life and minerals. The Shephelah, or coastal plain, lacks any natural harbor areas that would have led to the early exploitation of the Mediterranean in the south that is so well known in the northern areas of Phoenicia. It does, however, provide wide-open, fertile areas fed by the rain runoff from the central hill country, which allowed it to be a useful source of farming and civilization from a very early period.

The central hill country is essentially a ridge that runs parallel to the coast and undulates in elevation from the mountainous north to the rugged but less elevated regions of the south. This ridge served as a natural barrier against travel from west to east, so it is not surprising that important military towns such as Hazor cropped up in places where valleys in this ridge allowed travelers to move from the coast to the inland regions as necessary to reach Mesopotamia from Egypt. One such valley of significance through the history of the land of Canaan is the Esdraelon or Jezreel Valley. It provides a wide swath of land that moves from Akko in the west (  just north of the Carmel Range) to the Sea of Galilee in the east, with access points in the north and south. Within this valley were settlements such as Megiddo and Hazor in earlier times, and Nazareth and Tiberias in later times.

Along the eastern edge of the central hill country is the Jordan Rift Valley. The elevation drops dramatically from cities in the hill country, such as Jerusalem at about 2,500 feet above sea level, to cities in the valley, such as Jericho at about 1,000 feet below sea level, within the span of about fifteen miles. The valley itself is part of a much larger rift that starts in southeast Turkey and continues all the way to Mozambique in Africa. Waters from snowy Mount Hermon and a couple of natural springs feed into the Sea of Galilee and then flow into the Jordan River, which snakes its way down into the Dead Sea. The lands around the Jordan River were once very fertile in the north and probably included abundant forests and wildlife. Toward the south of the Jordan River, one approaches the wilderness surrounding the Dead Sea, a region well known for its mineral contents.

The southernmost section of Canaan, known as the Negev, is an unforgiving region with mountains, deserts, and interspersed oases throughout. It opens up into the Arabian Desert to the east and the Sinai Peninsula to the southwest. Its primary cities of importance in biblical times were Beersheba and Raphia. As the gateway from Egypt to Canaan, the Negev played a significant role in biblical history.

Climate. The climate of Canaan played a significant role in its religion and history. It is generally recognized that climate change played a rather momentous role in population movements by nomads, in destabilization of powerful governments, and in the capability, or lack thereof, of nations to participate in the trade that was at the heart of Canaan’s growth, spread of influence, and success. Within Canaan itself, because the natural water sources were on the wrong side of the central hill country, most of its water came from rainfall. It is not surprising, therefore, that many of the discussions that take place in both Canaanite and Israelite religious expressions concerning the power of their gods found utterance in terms of a god’s ability to grant rain (see 1 Kings 17–18). The rainy season began in October and typically continued through April. The other months of the year witnessed little or no rainfall. Although in a temperate zone within which one might expect high temperatures, the coastal plains were kept relatively cool by winds coming in off the sea. The coastal mountain areas, such as Carmel, were the most likely to receive rainfall, so when they were without it, all the land suffered (Amos 1:2).

Culture and Politics

The history of Canaan begins with an archaeological record that travels back into the first signs of human settlement anywhere in the world. Such early attestation exists within the confines of Palestine itself at Jericho and Megiddo, both sites of natural springs that would have attracted settlers. The pre-Israelite civilizations of Canaan are well attested during the Bronze Age (c. 3300–1200 BC). Their culture as represented in the art and architecture of the land demonstrates a developed people who were metropolitan in taste and gifted in style. Furthermore, because of the placement of the land between Egypt and Mesopotamia and the numerous incursions by outside forces throughout its history, Canaan reveals a people with a high tolerance for change and a willingness to absorb other viewpoints into their perspectives and practice. Archaeological finds reveal a mixture of Egyptian, Sumerian, Amorite, Hittite, and Akkadian influences in their literature, material wealth, and religion.

Though unified in terms of a worldview and religious expression, the people of Canaan were politically committed to independent expressions of their power and influence. The greater cities seem to have served as hubs around which smaller communities and cities organized and remained separate from each other. The Amarna letters of the fourteenth century BC reveal leaders who did not trust each other and who sought the Egyptian pharaoh’s favor as they vied for position and strength. As one would expect, different city-states held more sway in different eras. Ebla flourished in the period of 2500–2000 BC and then again around 1800 BC. Likewise, Byblos flourished in the period of 2500–1300 BC. It is in the Middle Bronze Age (2200–1550 BC) that cities more directly involved with the biblical narrative started to flourish. For instance, Jerusalem, Jericho, Hazor, and Megiddo reached their height of power and influence around 1700–1500 BC, and each of these is mentioned in various texts of the time that give us some insight into Canaan’s role in the greater political history. It is Ugarit/Ras Shamra, which flourished in 1400–1200 BC, however, that has granted us the greatest amount of textual knowledge and information about the religion and literature of Canaan.

Religion

The excavations of Ras Shamra (beginning in 1929), and the accompanying discovery of its archive of clay tablets, granted modern scholars a perspective into Canaanite religion that had been hinted at in the biblical text but previously had remained somewhat of a mystery. The tablets themselves date between 1400 and 1200 BC. They reveal a highly developed religion with identifiable, well-defined deities. These deities represent religious practice and thought in the region that go back to at least 2000 BC, and the Mesopotamian religions they are dependent on go back well beyond that.

Canaanite deities. The primary gods identified in the text include El, Baal, Asherah (at Ugarit, Athirat), Anath (at Ugarit, Anat), and Ashtoreth (at Ugarit, Astarte). El was the supreme Canaanite deity, though in popular use the people of Canaan seem to have been more interested in Baal.

The relationship between the Canaanite use of the name “El” for their supreme god and Israel’s use of the same in reference to its own God (Gen. 33:20; Job 8:3; Pss. 18:31, 33, 48; 68:21) is something that biblical authors used at various points in their writings (Ps. 81:9–10; Nah. 1:2), never in the sense of associating the two as one and the same, but solely for the purpose of distinguishing their God, Yahweh, from any associations with the descriptions and nature of the Canaanite El (Exod. 34:14). Practically speaking, the coincidence probably resulted from the fact that the Hebrew word ’el had a dual intent in its common usage, similar to the way a modern English speaker will sometimes use “god” as either a common or a proper noun.

Like “El,” the term “Baal” had a dual function in its use. Because the word means “master” or “lord,” the people of Canaan could apply “Baal” to either the singular deity of the greater pantheon or to individual gods of a more local variety. Local manifestations included Baal-Peor, Baal-Hermon, Baal-Zebul, and Baal-Meon. The OT acknowledges the multiplicity of Baals in some places (Judg. 2:11; 3:7; 1 Sam. 7:4) but also seems to allude to a singular ultimate Baal (1 Kings 18; 2 Kings 21:3), called “Baal-Shamen” or “Baal-Hadad” elsewhere. The fact that Baal was recognized in the Ugaritic texts as the god of the thunderbolt adds an interesting insight to the struggle on Mount Carmel, in which one would suppose that had he been real, the one thing he should have been able to do was bring fire down from the sky; but he could not (1 Kings 18). Recognition that the term “Baal” could refer to a number of gods or to one ultimate god may also help one understand the syncretism that took place in Israel between Yahweh and Baal addressed by the prophet Hosea (Hos. 2:16). To the common person who recognized the multiplicity of the term “Baal” and yet also heard of his supremacy, the assignment of the name to Yahweh and the resulting combining that would occur would seem a natural progression, though still sinful in the eyes of God.

The synthesis of Baal and Yahweh is demonstrated in Scripture as being a temptation from national Israel’s earliest encounters with Baalism. The events at Peor (Num. 25) demonstrate a propensity toward this type of activity, but the confusion between Yahweh and Baal became strongest once Israel entered into the land. Gideon had a second name, “Jerub-Baal” (Judg. 6:32), and the people themselves worshiped Baal-Berith (“Baal of the covenant”) as an indication that they believed their covenant to be with Baal, not Yahweh. Saul, Jonathan, and David all had sons named for Baal: Esh-Baal, Merib-Baal, and Beeliada respectively. Jeroboam I made the connection even more explicit in his setting of shrines at Dan and Bethel with the golden calves that were common icons for Baal in the era, but that he apparently viewed as being appropriate representations of Yahweh. By the time of the prophets, such confusion evidently was entrenched into the very heart of both Israel and Judah; however, Yahweh was able to utilize the false assessments of his character to clarify his true character and ultimately bring Israel back to him.

Asherah was the wife of El in Ugaritic mythology, but apparently because of Baal’s accessibility and ubiquitous nature, she was ultimately given to Baal as a consort among Canaanites in the south. Apparently, her worship was also linked to trees, and the mentioning of “Asherah poles” (Exod. 34:13; Deut. 7:5; Judg. 6:25) in Scripture suggests that such a linkage had been stylized into representative trees at sacred locations. Asherah had prophets (1 Kings 18:19) and specific instruments of worship in Israel (2 Kings 23:4) and became so ensconced in practice and thought that her form often was replicated in the form of items known as Asherim. The previously mentioned synthesis between Baal and Yahweh seems also to have found expression regarding Asherah within Israel. At Kuntillet Ajrud a famous graffito reads “Yahweh of Samaria and his Asherah.” This example of the people granting a consort to Yahweh is yet another instance where the biblical revelation is so distinct among surrounding cultures because of the absence of such imagery regarding God.

Anath was understood as both Baal’s sister and his lover in Canaanite mythology. Given her apparent replacement in the thought of the southern Canaanite tribes by Asherah, it is not surprising that the only place we find Anath mentioned is in appellations, such as “Beth Anath” (lit., “the house of Anath” [Josh. 19:38; Judg. 1:33]). She also seems to have played a role in the tone of Baal worship in that she functioned as a goddess of both warfare and sexuality. Her portrayal in Ugaritic texts and in inscriptions from Egypt suggests a lasciviousness that has become the defining characteristic of Canaanite worship and also seems to be at the center of the methodology implemented by Hosea to reach Israel, which had become ensnarled in a similar outlook regarding Yahweh (Hos. 1–3).

The descriptions of Ashtoreth at Ugarit portray her in much the same light as Anath. Some cultures such as Egypt and later Syria seem to have even melded them together into one being. Whether this combining was a part of the Israelite conceptions is difficult to determine, although such a combination may explain why only Ashtoreth is mentioned in the biblical text as an individual deity and not Anath. In any case, Ashtoreth apparently was a primary figure in the corruption of worship during the reign of Solomon (1 Kings 11:5, 33; 2 Kings 23:13).

Summary. By the time the Israelites entered the land, they found a religion that was already well established and accustomed to absorbing various viewpoints into its expression and practice. Additionally, they found a religion that catered to the more base and animalistic tendencies to which all humanity is drawn since the fall. The commonality of such practices among almost all ancient cultures serves as a potent reminder of the distinctiveness and power of the biblical worldview. The narratives, poems, and prophetic oracles of the OT demonstrate a knowledge of these beliefs and an acknowledgment of their place in the lives of everyday Israelites, but they never demonstrate a submission to them in their portrayal of the true God and his expectations of his people.

A staple of the Hebrew diet, milk is one of the things considered essential for life by Jesus ben Sira, a Jewish writer of the Second Temple period (Sir. 39:26). In the ancient Near East humans consumed the milk not just from cows but also from goats, sheep, and even camels (Gen. 32:15; Deut. 32:14; Isa. 7:21–22). Since there was no process of pasteurization or refrigeration, milk often was processed to create curds, cheese, butter, or slightly soured and fermented milk. The souring process was done inside an animal skin used to hold the liquid until it was needed (Judg. 4:19).

With the prominent place that milk held in the life of the people of Israel, it is no surprise that it appears in the Bible in many contexts. The land of Canaan is frequently described as a land “flowing with milk and honey,” a metaphor for prosperity and a promise of abundant pasturelands (Exod. 3:8; Lev. 20:24; Num. 13:27; Deut. 6:3). Milk sometimes is associated with honey or wine, and it may have been consumed in such combinations (Gen. 49:12; Isa. 55:1; Joel 3:18). Milk (like wine and honey) is a heavy liquid that leaves a pleasant aftertaste, and it may suggest the pleasures of kissing in Song of Songs (see, e.g., Song 4:11). The OT law proclaims, “Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk” (Exod. 23:19; Deut. 14:21). This mysterious prohibition probably refers to a Canaanite custom in which a young goat was cooked in its mother’s milk as part of a pagan religious ritual. This prohibition was later interpreted by Jewish scholars to indicate a total prohibition on eating meat and dairy products together in the same meal, which is a major aspect of kosher regulations. In the NT, milk is used metaphorically for nourishing spiritual teaching (1 Pet. 2:2). Paul reworks this image to indicate that believers, like growing infants, must move beyond the mere milk of basic principles to mature spiritual instruction (1 Cor. 3:2; cf. Heb. 5:12–13).

Moses played a leadership role in the founding of Israel as a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exod. 19:6). Indeed, the narrative of Exodus through Deuteronomy is the story of God using Moses to found the nation of Israel. It begins with an account of his birth (Exod. 2) and ends with an account of his death (Deut. 34). Moses’ influence and importance extend well beyond his lifetime, as later Scripture demonstrates.

Abraham’s Descendants in Egypt

The book of Genesis prepares the way for the story of Moses and the founding of Israel. After recounting the creation of the world and the fall into sin, the book eventually describes God’s choice of Abraham as the one whose descendants he will make “a great nation” and bring a blessing to the world (Gen. 12:1–3). However, by the end of Genesis, Abraham’s descendants have gone to Egypt in order to survive a devastating famine. Although they are in a good relationship with the Egyptian government, the hope is expressed that God will eventually return them to the land of promise (Gen. 50:24–26).

Many years pass between the close of the book of Genesis and the beginning of Exodus. The Israelite population has grown from family size (about seventy people) to nation size. Out of fear, the Egyptians had begun to oppress them. Indeed, the size of the Israelite population so worried them that Pharaoh instituted a decree calling for the death of all male babies born to the Israelites.

Moses’ Life before the Exodus

Moses was born in a dangerous time, and according to Pharaoh’s decree, he should not have survived long after his birth. He was born to Amram and Jochebed (Exod. 6:20). Circumventing Pharaoh’s decree, Jochebed placed the infant Moses in a reed basket and floated him down the river. This act seems desperate, but there are similar stories from the Near East (the account of the birth of Sargon, an Akkadian king), and perhaps it was a way of placing the endangered child in the hands of God. God guided the basket down the river and into the presence of none other than Pharaoh’s daughter (Exod. 2:5–6), who, at the urging of Moses’ sister, hired Jochebed to take care of the child. When the infant grew older, Pharaoh’s daughter gave him a Hebrew name, “Moses,” which sounds like the Hebrew verb mashah, meaning “to draw out” (Exod. 2:10). This amazing story of Moses’ survival at birth informs later Israel that their human savior was really provided by their divine savior.

Modern movie adaptations of this story dwell on Moses’ upbringing in Pharaoh’s household, but the Bible itself is essentially silent on this period of his life (apart from a reference to Moses’ Egyptian education in Acts 7:22; cf. Heb. 11:24). The next major episode concerns his defense of an Israelite worker who was being beaten by an Egyptian (Exod. 2:11–25). In the process of rescuing the Israelite, Moses killed the Egyptian. Apparently, his relationship to the ruler’s household would not save him from punishment, so when it became clear that he was known to be the killer, he fled Egypt and ended up in Midian, where he became a member of the family of a Midianite priest-chief, Jethro, by marrying his daughter Zipporah.

The territory of Midian is vaguely described in the Bible, perhaps because its people were nomadic sheepherders. They were often found around the Gulf of Aqaba and sometimes farther northeast of the Jordan River. The question is whether the tent of Jethro and Mount Sinai were on the Sinai Peninsula or on the eastern side of Aqaba in what is today Saudi Arabia.

Although Moses was not looking for a way back into Egypt, God had different plans. One day, while Moses was tending his sheep, God appeared to him in the form of a burning bush and commissioned him to go back to Egypt and lead his people to freedom. Moses expressed reluctance, and so God grudgingly enlisted his older brother, Aaron, to accompany him as his spokesperson.

The Exodus and Wilderness Wandering

Upon Moses’ return to Egypt, Pharaoh stubbornly refused to allow the Israelites to leave Egypt. God directed Moses to announce a series of plagues that ultimately induced Pharaoh to allow the Israelites to depart. After they left, Pharaoh had a change of mind and cornered them on the shores of the Red Sea (Sea of Reeds). It was at the Red Sea that God demonstrated his great power by splitting the sea and allowing the Israelites to escape before closing it again in judgment on the Egyptians. Moses signaled the presence of God by lifting his rod high in the air (Exod. 14:16). This event was long remembered as the defining moment when God released Israel from Egyptian slavery (Pss. 77; 114), and it even became the paradigm for future divine rescues (Isa. 40:3–5; Hos. 2:14–15).

After the crossing of the Red Sea, Moses led Israel back to Mount Sinai, the location of his divine commissioning. At this time, Moses went up the mountain as a prophetic mediator for the people (Deut. 18:16). He received the Ten Commandments, the rest of the law, and instructions to build the tabernacle (Exod. 19–24). All these were part of a new covenantal arrangement that today we refer to as the Mosaic or Sinaitic covenant.

However, as Moses came down the mountain with the law, he saw that the people, who had grown tired of waiting, were worshiping a false god that they had created in the form of a golden calf (Exod. 32). With the aid of the Levites, who that day assured their role as Israel’s priestly helpers, he brought God’s judgment against the offenders and also interceded in prayer with God to prevent the total destruction of Israel.

Thus began Israel’s long story of rebellion against God. God was particularly upset with the lack of confidence that the Israelites had shown when the spies from the twelve tribes gave their report (Num. 13). They did not believe that God could handle the fearsome warriors who lived in the land, and so God doomed them to forty years of wandering in the wilderness, enough time for the first generation to die. Not even Moses escaped this fate, since he had shown anger against God and attributed a miracle to his own power and not to God when he struck a rock in order to get water (Num. 20:1–13).

Thus, Moses was not permitted to enter the land of promise, though he had led the Israelites to the very brink of entry on the plains of Moab. There he gave his last sermon, which we know as the book of Deuteronomy. The purpose of his sermon was to tell the second generation of Israelites who were going to enter the land that they must obey God’s law or suffer the consequences. The form of the sermon was that of a covenant renewal, and so Israel on this occasion reaffirmed its loyalty to God.

After this, Moses went up on Mount Nebo, from which he could see the promised land, and died. Deuteronomy concludes with the following statements: “Since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face. . . . For no one has ever shown the mighty power or performed the awesome deeds that Moses did in the sight of all Israel” (Deut. 34:10, 12).

Legacy and Dates

The NT honors Moses as God’s servant but also makes the point that Jesus is one who far surpasses Moses as a mediator between God and people (Acts 3:17–26; Heb. 3).

The date of Moses is a matter of controversy because the biblical text does not name the pharaohs of the story. Many date him to the thirteenth century BC and associate him with Ramesses II, but others take 1 Kings 6:1 at face value and date him to the end of the fifteenth century BC, perhaps during the reign of Thutmose III.

This arid region, whose name sometimes is translated as “the south,” extends from Judah to the Gulf of Aqaba and includes the Desert of Paran. Abraham and Isaac both lived in the northern part of the Negev (Gen. 20:1; 24:62). Part of Israel’s wilderness wanderings took place in the Negev (Num. 13:17), and they encountered the Amalekites there (Num. 13:29). Joshua conquered this region and allotted it to Judah and Simeon (Josh. 10:40; 15:21; 19:8). When David conducted raids against the Geshurites, the Girzites, and the Amalekites, he told the Philistines that he was attacking the Negev (1 Sam. 27:10). The Negev is also referenced in poetic and prophetic texts (Ps. 126:4; Isa. 21:1; 30:6; Jer. 13:19; 17:26; Zech. 7:7).

This arid region, whose name sometimes is translated as “the south,” extends from Judah to the Gulf of Aqaba and includes the Desert of Paran. Abraham and Isaac both lived in the northern part of the Negev (Gen. 20:1; 24:62). Part of Israel’s wilderness wanderings took place in the Negev (Num. 13:17), and they encountered the Amalekites there (Num. 13:29). Joshua conquered this region and allotted it to Judah and Simeon (Josh. 10:40; 15:21; 19:8). When David conducted raids against the Geshurites, the Girzites, and the Amalekites, he told the Philistines that he was attacking the Negev (1 Sam. 27:10). The Negev is also referenced in poetic and prophetic texts (Ps. 126:4; Isa. 21:1; 30:6; Jer. 13:19; 17:26; Zech. 7:7).

The Hebrew word nepilim occurs only in Gen. 6:4; Num. 13:33. Some translations render the word as “giants.” Literally, it means “fallen ones.” Some scholars have considered the Nephilim to be offspring from the unions between the “sons of God” and the “daughters of humans,” but it is also possible that the writer was distinguishing between the Nephilim and the children of those unions who became the “heroes of old” and “men of renown” (Gen. 6:4). Descendants of the Nephilim were purported to have also lived after the flood (Deut. 2:10–11, 20–23; Josh. 14:15; 15:13–14; 2 Sam. 21:16–22; 1 Chron. 20:6–8). Since the entire human race, except for Noah and his family, was destroyed in the deluge, these descendants who lived in Canaan at the time of the exodus most likely descended through Ham, one of Noah’s sons (Gen. 10:8–20).

The desert to which the Israelites journeyed after leaving the Desert of Sinai (Num. 10:11–12). The location is never explicitly mentioned, but it can be inferred from some of the descriptions of the Israelites’ wilderness journey. It is a desert region south of Judah, west of Edom, and north of Sinai, within the region known as the Negev. This is the location from which Moses sent spies to explore the promised land (Num. 13:3). They subsequently returned to the Desert of Paran at Kadesh (Num. 13:26), giving us a geographical reference near Kadesh. Other references to the Desert of Paran confirm this location. Genesis 21:21 specifies the Desert of Paran as the place to which Abraham banished Ishmael, and specific references to Egypt and Beersheba clarify its location between them. See also 1 Kings 11:18.

Archaeology is the scientific study of the material remains of past human life and activities. It can also be described as the procedure by which ancient artifacts are recovered, identified, and interpreted. Archaeology deals with both the prehistorical and historical periods and encompasses both written (epigraphical) and unwritten (artifactual) discoveries. Even though literary remains (inscriptions, ostraca [potsherds], seals) are typically the subject of other disciplines, archaeological investigation usually is responsible for their discovery. Without archaeology much of the available written evidence would have remained buried forever in the ground. Unwritten materials include everything made by humans, such as fortifications, pottery, tools, jewelry, and weapons.

Biblical archaeology more narrowly focuses on the material remains of Israel and its neighboring countries that relate to the biblical period and narrative. For example, ancient texts recovered from sites such as Mari, Ugarit, Ebla, and Amarna shed valuable light on the biblical record and on the history and religion of the ancient Near East. Biblical archaeology may be understood as the process of correlating archaeological evidence with the biblical record. Archaeology and the Bible are closely related because they inform each other. Thus, even though archaeology and biblical studies are independent disciplines, they are certainly interrelated.

The History of Biblical Archaeology

To understand better the meaning of biblical archaeology, it is necessary to briefly trace its history. Before the 1800s little was known about the Bible’s background, despite its central role in the religion and culture of the world, because the Bible was the primary source for access to the history of ancient Israel and its neighbors. There were few sources to which the Scripture historians could appeal besides the apocryphal writings and the works of Josephus, because the early Greek historians (Herodotus and Thucydides) were of limited value, given their interest in the “major players” of history.

The discovery of the Rosetta Stone (dated 196 BC) in 1799 and its decipherment in 1822 by J. F. Champollion opened wide the doors to ancient Egypt’s history. Within twenty-five years, by the decipherment of Akkadian cuneiform by Henry Rawlinson (1846), the world had the key to reading and interpreting thousands of tablets and monumental texts from ancient Babylonia, Assyria, and even the land of the Hittites. These two major developments allowed the voices from the ancient world of the Bible to speak once more and encouraged historians to look at the Bible as supported by the background data coming from the rest of the ancient Near East. As a result of these developments, a new interest was kindled in ancient Near Eastern cultures and the material remains (realia) that they left behind, coupled with a renewed interest in the setting of the biblical text.

Initial excavations of biblical sites. The beginnings of scientific exploration of Palestine can be traced to 1838 when American Edward Robinson (geographer and explorer) aided by the Arabist Eli Smith undertook a historic trip to the Holy Land and succeeded in identifying over one hundred biblical sites, effectively laying the foundations for biblical archaeology and geography. This led to the establishment of the British Palestine Exploration Fund in 1865 for the purpose of exploring Palestine systematically and scientifically, and to several of the geographic surveys of western Palestine and Transjordan.

The beginning of major excavations of biblical sites was not far behind, and in 1890 William M. F. Petrie (a renowned Egyptologist then) initiated what is widely regarded as the first modern archaeological excavation in the Holy Land. He excavated Tell el-Hesi (identification still uncertain) in the northern Negev, and his work underlies archaeological inquiry in the Holy Land to this day. More specifically, Petrie laid the foundations of modern archaeology by his application of stratigraphy and ceramic typology.

Stratigraphy is the technique of digging a tell (a cone-shaped mound that contains the remains of successive human occupation over a long period of time) layer by layer while carefully separating and recording the contents of each occupational layer. This technique tries to untangle these layers in the reverse order (the older layers of occupation are always below the newer layers) of their deposition and to reconstruct the history of a site period by period.

Typology is the technique of classifying artifacts based on their external characteristics (shape, ware, and decoration). Pottery is considered an accurate tool for dating the occupational layers of a tell, and ceramic typology is the art of charting changes in local pottery styles. By analyzing the pottery lying within successive layers at Hesi, Petrie was able to construct a relative chronological framework for Palestine. To arrive at a more absolute chronology, the researchers from Palestine usually need (especially in the earlier periods) to correlate their findings with similar styles from neighboring areas, such as Egypt and Mesopotamia, where there are available written records and astronomically fixed dates.

Before World War I, the first and only American excavation in Palestine that deserves mention is that of George A. Reisner and architect Clarence S. Fisher between 1908 and 1910 at Sebastiyeh (biblical Samaria). The rest are usually considered to have resembled “treasure hunts.” By the use of systematic digging and recording in Palestine, the Reisner-Fisher method, which was far more comprehensive and meticulous than Petrie’s, greatly improved Palestinian archaeology.

The first golden age. The “golden age” of American excavation in Palestine followed a few decades later, after World War I in the 1920s and 1930s. Numerous and well-financed archaeological digs started at the following biblical sites: Ai, Bethel, Beth-shean, Beth-shemesh, Beth-zur, Debir, Gibeah, Jericho, Mizpah, Samaria, Shechem, and others. All of these excavations, however, were overshadowed by the work of Orientalist W. F. Albright at Tell Beit Mirsim (identity still disputed, but perhaps Debir).

It was Albright and those of the American school in Jerusalem (now the Albright Institute of Archaeology) who dominated the scene in these formative years. Albright refined Petrie’s methodology and integrated very well archaeology, biblical research, and ancient Near Eastern studies, thus establishing biblical (and Palestinian) archaeology as a discipline in its own right. He also envisioned an “archaeological revolution” that would open up the lands, peoples, and lost sites of the ancient Near East so that the Bible would be better understood and also gain new credibility. He certainly was reacting against the spirit of his time, when sterile debates of textual and literary criticism (especially of the skeptical variety) were prevalent in both European and American liberalism, and this seems to have led some to believe that archaeology’s primary function was to “prove the Bible true.”

The second golden age. A second “golden age” of biblical archaeology is usually considered to have arrived after World War II when various foreign teams worked throughout the Middle East in cooperation with local archaeologists, a trend that continues today. The archaeology of Palestine advanced rapidly, with significant improvements in the techniques of digging and recording. The greatest influence on archaeological method at this time belongs to Kathleen Kenyon (English excavator of Jericho [Tell es-Sultan]), whose stratigraphical method (known as the Wheeler-Kenyon method) is used even today by excavators, with modifications. Other important archaeologists who contributed significantly to the biblical archaeology movement are Yigael Yadin of Israel and G. E. Wright of the United States.

During the height of its prominence and promise, biblical archaeology became an important component for the biblical theology movement and also for Christian apologetics (especially as represented by Joseph Free of Wheaton College). In fact, one of the greatest theologians in the biblical theology movement, G. E. Wright, was also Albright’s student. He conducted a major excavation at Tell Balath (biblical Shechem), following the Wheeler-Kenyon method and emphasizing pottery chronology in the tradition of the Albright school. More important, Shechem was a training ground for many American archaeologists where Wright created a new school of field archaeology.

The new archaeology. In the 1960s, under the influence of the social and natural sciences, the “new archaeology” that developed tended to focus on the comprehensive study of humans as species (and not on historical issues). William G. Dever (a student and follower of G. E. Wright at the important Tel Gezer project) argued forcefully and successfully for the “liberation” of Near Eastern archaeology from biblical studies and preferred the term (prevalent today in most American schools) “Syro-Palestinian archaeology.” Today, with very few exceptions (e.g., Harvard University), most American universities offer classes in the archaeology of Syria-Palestine (this was apparently Albright’s old alternate term for biblical archaeology), not in biblical archaeology. The name of the popular magazine Biblical Archaeologist was also changed to Ancient Near Eastern Archaeology, despite protests from many of its readers.

The new archaeology began with the realization in the 1960s that much data of potential significance has been overlooked, and perhaps even vital evidence has been discarded. New questions and methods developed from the frustration that old questions have not been answered satisfactorily. The temporal and geographical horizons of the new archaeology broadened to include the Paleolithic period (c. 100,000 BC) through the Ottoman era (AD 1922), and attention is now paid to the neglected periods of Judaism and early Christianity.

More important, the composition of the dig staff broadened considerably to include a much larger body of scientists to assist in answering the new questions posed. Today, the field archaeologists (besides historians, linguists, and ceramic experts) are supported by geologists, anthropologists, paleoethnobotanists, zoologists, climatologists, hydrologists, ethnographers, and, more recently, statisticians and computer experts. It is clear that the new archaeology is done in a very interdisciplinary way. The Tell Hesban and Khirbat en-Nahas excavations (both in Jordan) are good models of this type of interdisciplinary research. Bones, seeds, and other organic materials are now saved and carefully recorded to address questions related to economic strategies, social differentiation, diet, disease, and the like. Soil and pollen samples are taken, extensive regional and environmental surveys are carried out, and material culture samples and artifacts are submitted for sophisticated analysis. It is ironic (according to Dever) that this new and “secular” archaeology, while demanding more autonomy from the Bible, promises to contribute even more to biblical studies as it grows in precision and sophistication.

The new archaeology and Syro-Palestinian archaeology of today have advantages and disadvantages. They have the advantages of staff who are better equipped and trained, as well as educated volunteers who usually have genuine interest in their work. More important, their conclusions have the advantage of being based on data that is more scientifically obtained and analyzed. Many of the digs run field schools modeled on the ones from the Gezer project (1964–1973), which trained hundreds of student volunteers. These are all good and useful for both participants and their projects, but they have led to significant rises in the costs of an excavation. Thus, a typical six-week season is estimated now to cost in excess of one hundred thousand dollars. Since the new archaeology has led to a “secularization” of biblical archaeology and churches and seminaries have gradually stopped sponsoring these projects, the funds have had to come increasingly from federal and public sources of support. The National Endowment for the Humanities (and private donors later) became the major source of funds in the 1970s.

Approaches to the Bible in Modern Archaeology

There is no doubt that the new archaeology has introduced many useful scientific improvements in the field. (Of course, these scientific improvements were embraced by both biblical and Syro-Palestinian archaeologists in the 1970s, and the distinction between these two groups has become largely imaginary.) At the same time, however, it has brought new biases against the biblical text. The Bible, in Dever’s view, was never intended as a historical document and should be viewed with “considerable suspicion” for reconstructing the history of the ancient Near East. Other archaeologists in the field (and also historians) have an even more negative attitude toward the Bible. However, it must be emphasized that all (or at least most) agree that the Bible has its role in the archaeology of Syria-Palestine. The question has to do with how the Bible should be used.

Maximalist and minimalist approaches. The two schools of thought that seem the loudest in the debate among biblical and/or Syro-Palestinian archaeologists are usually labeled “maximalist” and “minimalist.” (To these Kenneth A. Kitchen adds the label “factualist.” According to Kitchen, the agenda of a “factualist” is neither to prove nor to disprove any theory concerning the early history of Israel, but simply to examine the facts and let the data speak for itself.)

The maximalist school has a strong view of the historical reliability of Scripture and emphasizes synergy between archaeology and biblical studies. Others consider this to be a naive approach to Scripture and an uncritical acceptance of the information that it tries to communicate. The maximalists follow the scholarship of W. F. Albright and his student John Bright, and they assume that the OT speaks of historical realities. When seeking to reconstruct the history of ancient Israel, they readily and confidently refer to the biblical record as a valid and significant source for their research. They are also confident that when all the data is in, a biblical history of Israel (aided by archaeology) will exhibit a close correspondence with the real history of Israel.

The minimalist school is generally skeptical concerning the historical reliability of the biblical text. Many advocates of this approach argue that the OT was written primarily during the Hellenistic period (it certainly is postexilic), centuries after the events that it claims to describe. A community around Jerusalem created the traditions found in the Bible in order to give account for themselves and their distinctive religious notions and practices. According to this approach, any correlation between the Bible and the archaeological record is suspect a priori. When there are tensions between biblical and extrabiblical records (including archaeology), the extrabiblical records are to be preferred as evidence, and the contradictions are usually emphasized to undermine the reliability of the Bible as a historical source.

The minimalist movement has developed gradually. Although a century ago there were many who questioned the historicity of the first chapters of Genesis, most accepted the essential historicity of the patriarchs, the exodus from Egypt under Moses, the conquest of Canaan by Joshua, the historicity of David and Solomon, and the rest of the OT narrative. During the past forty years, however, serious doubt has been cast on all of these events.

The stance of the minimalists led to peculiar (and rarely settled) controversies over issues such as the legitimacy of reading “the house of David” in the Tel Dan inscription (discovered in 1993), the Siloam Tunnel inscription (which overlaps with 2 Chron. 32 and is traditionally ascribed to Hezekiah), the very existence of Jerusalem during the days of David and Solomon, and even the existence of these two kings.

A fresh approach. Is there a way to move beyond the current state of the debate? Some believe that there is hope by using a fresh approach to biblical archaeology, one that follows in the footsteps of Lawrence Stager and Philip King (see their book, Life in Biblical Israel  ). This approach does not try to reconstruct history or simply illuminate the Bible; rather, it seeks to enter into the world of the ancients to acquire a fuller understanding of Israelite society and its literary record through the combined use of artifacts, sociology, and ethnography. Textual and archaeological data are brought into a historical discourse by “selecting and interpreting them through the problematics of social history.” Thus, biblical archaeology in the older sense is making a comeback by hearkening back to the integrative works of the nineteenth century, but with vast amounts of new data. This “new biblical archaeology” should not be driven by apologetic purposes and should not aim to “prove the truth of the Bible.” It should have more modest and realistic goals, considering the limitations of archaeology (see below).

Evangelical archaeologists, confident in the truth of the Bible (which can stand by itself despite its many attacks from within and without), should have as their goal the understanding of the biblical world in its geographical, cultural, and historical setting. They should use archaeology and linguistics to correlate biblical texts and ancient artifacts against the background of the historical and geographical setting. When historical questions are posed, the cumulative evidence should lead to probability and plausibility rather than a defensive quest for final proof. This attempt to follow historical probability vis-à-vis the Bible is different from setting out a priori with a defensive Bible-proving agenda.

This new approach will not make the Scriptures say more than judicious assessment of the evidence will allow (a problem that plagues some conservative interpreters), but neither will it cast undue skepticism on the Scriptures’ historical value (the problem of the minimalists). It endeavors to pay close attention both to the literary nature and intentions of the biblical text and to the fragmentary nature of the archaeological record.

These new biblical archaeologists do not set out again “to prove the Bible.” Instead, they seek to situate the texts of the OT in their historical and cultural contexts and to demonstrate how awareness of the extrabiblical world can open new doors into the Bible. Their goals are more modest, not because of a lower view of Scripture, but rather because of a clearer understanding of the limitations and fragmentary nature of archaeology despite its considerable refinement in the recent decades.

The Limitations of Archaeology

Archaeology has limitations because of the vast amount of time and area to be covered and because of the hazards of preservation. Objects of wood, leatherwork, basketry, papyrus, and cloth rarely survive, and metals (especially precious metals) were frequently recycled. It is also important to realize that no biblical site has ever been completely excavated, and most of the excavations tend to pay greater attention to the major buildings (citadels, temples, palaces) rather than the homes of the general population.

Only in recent years have accurate methods of stratification and recording enabled comparisons to be made between sites, and the reliability of some foundational excavations in the Holy Land is rightly questioned by the finds from newer excavations (e.g., Megiddo, Gezer, and Hazor are being reexcavated in part to clarify and answer questions raised by previous excavations and debates). This is understandable because most of the foundational excavations in the Holy Land did not have access to the accurate methods of stratification, recording, and scientific analysis available today. Many useful artifacts and especially organic objects were routinely discarded in the earlier excavations.

In general, earlier levels of a site are more likely to have been disturbed by the activities of later periods, and it was very common for older buildings (and sometimes even monumental inscriptions) to be dismantled and the (stone) blocks reused for later buildings or even roads. The objects that archaeologists discover survive and are most often found by accident. Consequently, given the limitations and pitfalls of archaeology (especially the way it was done in the earliest part of the twentieth century), one must have realistic and more modest expectations about what archaeology can recover, and realize that the further one goes in time, the less archaeological information may be available for comparison and useful analysis. Add to this that some of the central characters of the Bible (e.g., Abraham, Moses, most of the judges, Ezra) were not major players in the world of their time, and that some important sites have never been excavated (e.g., Damascus, Hebron), and it becomes clear that there are considerable reasons to have more realistic and modest expectations about what archaeology can accomplish.

The role and possibility of accurately interpreting archaeological remains should also be taken into consideration, especially since there are well-documented cases in which the interpretation of the excavator has turned out to be false (e.g., the “Degenerated Ashtoreth Plaque” of R. A. S. Macalister from Gezer). Anyone who has ever participated in an archaeological excavation led by a group of experts in the field can remember debates that took place among these experts, not only about the dating of various pieces of pottery, but even about the role and dating of well-defined and visible monumental architecture. While this is understandable and desirable, and many times leads to the refinement and corrections of unwarranted early assumptions, the process shows the difficulty inherent in interpreting the fragmentary remains of a dead civilization far removed from our times and settings.

Material Remains and Written Sources

It is a sobering fact that archaeology cannot provide the basis for history. Material remains can reveal climate changes and their impact, sequences of human cultures and their products, traces of destruction and desertion, changes in building techniques and art. Nevertheless, the persons involved remain anonymous, their thoughts, motives and faith a mystery, and the specific events of their times largely unknown (e.g., the destruction by fire of Lachish II could not have been accurately dated and related without the biblical report in Jer. 34:7). It is the written documents (many times recovered through archaeology) that can reveal the names of kings and kingdoms, their dates and deeds, and the fruits of their thinking in literature. It is the testimony of these texts, rightly evaluated, that can add the “flesh and features” to the “bones” archaeology discovers (Allan Millard).

On the other hand, the material remains of life (pottery, jewelry, tools, weapons, cultic objects, architecture, etc.) as recovered through archaeology can bring color to the textual references. Nevertheless, the written sources are essential and provide the most valuable information for recovering the history and faith of any ancient nation. It is the duty of the biblical scholar and archaeologist to interpret correctly the available data from Syria-Palestine and to arrive at plausible explanations concerning the biblical world. The combination of texts (biblical and extrabiblical), material culture (archaeology), geography, and history holds considerable promise to help scholars better define the context of Scripture.

There is no doubt that this approach to archaeology holds considerable potential as it is generating more material than is possible for any person (or even school) to encompass. As one of the most quickly changing social sciences today, both in theoretical advances and new data, archaeology is and will be the source of new insights into biblical life and times. It seems that the “archaeological revolution” predicted by W. F. Albright is far from over; it probably has only begun.

The evidence for this revolution from the evangelical field is visible in various ways. The rest of this entry briefly presents some selective archaeological data that helps define the context and that complements (since the writers of the Bible were selective in their reporting), challenges, or confirms the narrative of the Bible. The data should help the interpreter of the Bible bridge the geographical, temporal, and cultural gap that leads to the ancient writer.

The Cannanite (Bronze) Age (3300–1200 BC)

Early Bronze Age. Towns with mud-brick walls begin to appear in Canaan in the Early Bronze Age I (before 3000 BC). Evidence of occupation in the third millennium is found at Beth-yerah, Beth-shan, Gezer, Jerusalem, Jericho, Arad, Megiddo, and Ai, among others. There was a difference between the pottery of the north (Beth-yerah) and that of the south, while the most striking development was that of the fine “Khirbet Kerak” ware.

Middle Bronze Age. About 2200 BC (Middle Bronze Age I) there arrived a distinctive nomadic people identified with the Amorites of the Bible (Num. 13:29; Josh. 5:1; 10:6). They had distinctive burial customs, pottery, and weapons that show connection with the city-states of Syria. It is most likely that their kings included the Asiatic “Foreign Rulers” (Hyksos) who conquered Egypt in the eighteenth century BC. This was a time of wealth and frequent warfare between cities. It seems that the Middle Bronze Age was a time when seminomadic groups (including a group called “Habiru,” who are also found in the Late Bronze Age) infiltrated the land between defended towns. It is possible that the patriarchs were among these Habiru, who infiltrated mostly the hill country and the Negev. In fact, it is demonstrable from a comparison with the eighteenth-century BC texts from Mari (on the Euphrates River) that the pastoral traditions of Genesis fit the early second-millennium BC context much better than later periods.

The towns and houses of the Middle Bronze Age were violently destroyed in the fifteenth century BC, most likely by the Egyptians, who expelled the Hyksos. Despite the trade that seems to have continued with the eastern Mediterranean (Mycenaean pottery), the hill towns of Palestine were now poorer and fewer than the coastal cities. This situation is clearly reflected in the Amarna letters between the kings of Canaan and Egypt. The major cities were reoccupied, but many of them were destroyed later in the thirteenth century.

Late Bronze Age. It is in the Late Bronze Age (c. 1550–1200 BC) that the biblical account is usually challenged by the archaeological discoveries. Even if one accepts the reasonable interpretation that Joshua burned only three cities (Jericho, Ai, Hazor) in his campaign (see Josh. 6:24; 8:28; 11:13), the evidence of destruction from both Jericho and Ai is highly questionable. Thus, while it is widely believed that Jericho was abandoned around 1325 BC, the fallen walls once thought to belong to this period were dated much earlier by Kathleen Kenyon (Early Bronze). The evidence from Ai (et-Tell) is even less promising, unless Bryan Wood is correct in his identification of Ai with Khirbet el-Maqatir.

Based on the apparent lack of change in material culture during the Late Bronze Age, mainstream archaeologists commonly classify the Israelites as dissident Canaanites who moved into the hill country.

Although it cannot be conclusively demonstrated from archaeology that the Israelites were not Canaanites but rather came to Canaan from the outside, the mainstream interpretation has serious problems of its own. There was clearly a new pattern of simple farming in the hills, characterized by four-room houses whose inhabitants used many collared-rim jars, and there is an almost complete absence of pig bones (which usually are found in the Canaanite cities) in the hill-country sites. More important, there is strong evidence that the Israelites were worshiping their own national God (YHWH) by the ninth century BC, in sharp contrast to the polytheistic religion of Canaan (as illuminated by the culture in neighboring Ugarit). The personal names of individuals in the eighth and seventh centuries BC are almost exclusively Yahwistic.

Another very significant change is the abandonment of the shrines in towns of the Late Bronze Age. Not a single site can be identified in which worship continued from the Late Bronze Age well into the Iron Age (it seems that by 1000 BC the Canaanites disappeared as an entity in the area occupied by Israel). It is highly unlikely that the Canaanites who moved from towns into the hill-country sites would have abandoned their divinities (whose need they must have felt greatly while facing the uncertainties of the wilderness), and it is even more unlikely that people who had come from different towns with different deities would have accepted almost universally a new patron deity of obscure provenance. The continuity in material culture of a nation that was to take over the homes and all the equipment of the Canaanites should not be surprising in light of the commands of the Bible (Deut. 6:10–11). The almost universal rise of the worship of the God of Israel, and the mention of Israel as a group of people in the Stela of Merneptah (c. 1208 BC), argue forcefully that the Israelites were not really Canaanites.

The Israelite (Iron) Age (1200–586 BC)

By the twelfth century, the Philistine settlement of southwest Canaan is attested by a new type of pottery with Late Mycenaean affinities. This new type of pottery was found throughout Philistia, the Shephelah, and as far north as Joppa. Wealthy and well-constructed Canaanite cities held out for at least another century (Beth-Shean, Gezer, and Megiddo?). The evidence for Israelites comes from the small villages throughout the hill country and Galilee. Traditionally, as mentioned above, they are recognized by their four-room houses, large number of storage pits for grain, large storage jars with thick-collared rims, and preference for terracing hillsides for farming.

Archaeologically, it is very difficult to at­trib­ute the construction of cities to any king of the united monarchy (but see the recent discovery below). Saul had a citadel at Gibeah (Tell el-Fûl), and the first fortification there has been attributed to him. It shows the adoption of a new fortification system of casemate wall, characteristic of this period. Similar casemate walls have been found at Shechem, Beth-shemesh, and Beit Mirsim (and later even in Moab). A small town at Megiddo, whose houses form a defensive ring around the perimeter of the mound, has been attributed to David.

Though 1 Kings 9:15 reports how Solomon built up Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer, the dating of the six-chambered gates found in all of these sites and the related walls is still being debated. A much more recent excavation from Khirbat en-Nahas in Jordan has found industrial-scale production of copper in a region and at a time that correlates well with the narrative about Solomon (see 1 Kings 7:46).

Another very recent and impressive find comes from Khirbet Qeiyafa (most likely Shaaraim [Josh. 15:36; 1 Sam. 17:52; 1 Chron. 4:31–32]). This site, located in the western part of the high Shephelah (near Azekah), was recently excavated by Yosef Garfinkel and Saar Ganor of Hebrew University, Jerusalem. On the basis of four burnt olive pits tested at Oxford University, the excavators dated this fortified city to the time of David. They concluded that the massive construction of the city wall (which required two hundred thousand tons of stone) supports the existence of a centralized political organization, a state—a conclusion that has far-reaching implications for the disputed chronology of Iron Age IIA (1000–900 BC). They also found a five-line inscription, indicating that writing was practiced in the region. This inscription is important because it seems to be the longest proto-Canaanite inscription ever found, and the earliest Hebrew inscription known to date.

The Hellenistic-Roman Period (332 BC and Following)

Herod the Great (37–4 BC) was the ambitious ruler who carried through most of the grand building projects that still dot the Holy Land today. At Jerusalem, which is still being excavated, the massive walls that he built for the platform of the temple are still visible today both above and below the ground. Other ruins associated with Herod have been found at Caesarea, Jericho, Herodium (near Bethlehem), Masada, and also in Jordan.

One of the most important inscriptions for NT studies (especially the Gospels) was found by the Italian excavators of Caesarea. These excavators found that the inscription refers to Pontius Pilate, prefect of Judea. Other inscriptions from Greece and Turkey are connected with the events described in Acts and Paul’s letters. Thus, in Corinth a door inscription (“Synagogue of the Hebrews”) may indicate the place where Paul preached (Acts 18:4). Excavations there revealed a text naming Erastus as a benefactor. This may be the city treasurer of Rom. 16:23. Near Lystra inscriptions record the dedication to Zeus of a statue of Hermes by some Lycaonians, and nearby was a stone altar for Zeus and Hermes. This explains the identification of Barnabas with Zeus (Jupiter) and Paul with Hermes (Mercury) in Acts 14:11–12.

It is clear from the selective sample of data presented here that the field of archaeology has contributed considerably to the context and understanding of the biblical world. All the signs and recent excavations suggest that there are continuing and exciting prospects to be found in the newer (biblical) archaeology.

Archaeology is the scientific study of the material remains of past human life and activities. It can also be described as the procedure by which ancient artifacts are recovered, identified, and interpreted. Archaeology deals with both the prehistorical and historical periods and encompasses both written (epigraphical) and unwritten (artifactual) discoveries. Even though literary remains (inscriptions, ostraca [potsherds], seals) are typically the subject of other disciplines, archaeological investigation usually is responsible for their discovery. Without archaeology much of the available written evidence would have remained buried forever in the ground. Unwritten materials include everything made by humans, such as fortifications, pottery, tools, jewelry, and weapons.

Biblical archaeology more narrowly focuses on the material remains of Israel and its neighboring countries that relate to the biblical period and narrative. For example, ancient texts recovered from sites such as Mari, Ugarit, Ebla, and Amarna shed valuable light on the biblical record and on the history and religion of the ancient Near East. Biblical archaeology may be understood as the process of correlating archaeological evidence with the biblical record. Archaeology and the Bible are closely related because they inform each other. Thus, even though archaeology and biblical studies are independent disciplines, they are certainly interrelated.

The History of Biblical Archaeology

To understand better the meaning of biblical archaeology, it is necessary to briefly trace its history. Before the 1800s little was known about the Bible’s background, despite its central role in the religion and culture of the world, because the Bible was the primary source for access to the history of ancient Israel and its neighbors. There were few sources to which the Scripture historians could appeal besides the apocryphal writings and the works of Josephus, because the early Greek historians (Herodotus and Thucydides) were of limited value, given their interest in the “major players” of history.

The discovery of the Rosetta Stone (dated 196 BC) in 1799 and its decipherment in 1822 by J. F. Champollion opened wide the doors to ancient Egypt’s history. Within twenty-five years, by the decipherment of Akkadian cuneiform by Henry Rawlinson (1846), the world had the key to reading and interpreting thousands of tablets and monumental texts from ancient Babylonia, Assyria, and even the land of the Hittites. These two major developments allowed the voices from the ancient world of the Bible to speak once more and encouraged historians to look at the Bible as supported by the background data coming from the rest of the ancient Near East. As a result of these developments, a new interest was kindled in ancient Near Eastern cultures and the material remains (realia) that they left behind, coupled with a renewed interest in the setting of the biblical text.

Initial excavations of biblical sites. The beginnings of scientific exploration of Palestine can be traced to 1838 when American Edward Robinson (geographer and explorer) aided by the Arabist Eli Smith undertook a historic trip to the Holy Land and succeeded in identifying over one hundred biblical sites, effectively laying the foundations for biblical archaeology and geography. This led to the establishment of the British Palestine Exploration Fund in 1865 for the purpose of exploring Palestine systematically and scientifically, and to several of the geographic surveys of western Palestine and Transjordan.

The beginning of major excavations of biblical sites was not far behind, and in 1890 William M. F. Petrie (a renowned Egyptologist then) initiated what is widely regarded as the first modern archaeological excavation in the Holy Land. He excavated Tell el-Hesi (identification still uncertain) in the northern Negev, and his work underlies archaeological inquiry in the Holy Land to this day. More specifically, Petrie laid the foundations of modern archaeology by his application of stratigraphy and ceramic typology.

Stratigraphy is the technique of digging a tell (a cone-shaped mound that contains the remains of successive human occupation over a long period of time) layer by layer while carefully separating and recording the contents of each occupational layer. This technique tries to untangle these layers in the reverse order (the older layers of occupation are always below the newer layers) of their deposition and to reconstruct the history of a site period by period.

Typology is the technique of classifying artifacts based on their external characteristics (shape, ware, and decoration). Pottery is considered an accurate tool for dating the occupational layers of a tell, and ceramic typology is the art of charting changes in local pottery styles. By analyzing the pottery lying within successive layers at Hesi, Petrie was able to construct a relative chronological framework for Palestine. To arrive at a more absolute chronology, the researchers from Palestine usually need (especially in the earlier periods) to correlate their findings with similar styles from neighboring areas, such as Egypt and Mesopotamia, where there are available written records and astronomically fixed dates.

Before World War I, the first and only American excavation in Palestine that deserves mention is that of George A. Reisner and architect Clarence S. Fisher between 1908 and 1910 at Sebastiyeh (biblical Samaria). The rest are usually considered to have resembled “treasure hunts.” By the use of systematic digging and recording in Palestine, the Reisner-Fisher method, which was far more comprehensive and meticulous than Petrie’s, greatly improved Palestinian archaeology.

The first golden age. The “golden age” of American excavation in Palestine followed a few decades later, after World War I in the 1920s and 1930s. Numerous and well-financed archaeological digs started at the following biblical sites: Ai, Bethel, Beth-shean, Beth-shemesh, Beth-zur, Debir, Gibeah, Jericho, Mizpah, Samaria, Shechem, and others. All of these excavations, however, were overshadowed by the work of Orientalist W. F. Albright at Tell Beit Mirsim (identity still disputed, but perhaps Debir).

It was Albright and those of the American school in Jerusalem (now the Albright Institute of Archaeology) who dominated the scene in these formative years. Albright refined Petrie’s methodology and integrated very well archaeology, biblical research, and ancient Near Eastern studies, thus establishing biblical (and Palestinian) archaeology as a discipline in its own right. He also envisioned an “archaeological revolution” that would open up the lands, peoples, and lost sites of the ancient Near East so that the Bible would be better understood and also gain new credibility. He certainly was reacting against the spirit of his time, when sterile debates of textual and literary criticism (especially of the skeptical variety) were prevalent in both European and American liberalism, and this seems to have led some to believe that archaeology’s primary function was to “prove the Bible true.”

The second golden age. A second “golden age” of biblical archaeology is usually considered to have arrived after World War II when various foreign teams worked throughout the Middle East in cooperation with local archaeologists, a trend that continues today. The archaeology of Palestine advanced rapidly, with significant improvements in the techniques of digging and recording. The greatest influence on archaeological method at this time belongs to Kathleen Kenyon (English excavator of Jericho [Tell es-Sultan]), whose stratigraphical method (known as the Wheeler-Kenyon method) is used even today by excavators, with modifications. Other important archaeologists who contributed significantly to the biblical archaeology movement are Yigael Yadin of Israel and G. E. Wright of the United States.

During the height of its prominence and promise, biblical archaeology became an important component for the biblical theology movement and also for Christian apologetics (especially as represented by Joseph Free of Wheaton College). In fact, one of the greatest theologians in the biblical theology movement, G. E. Wright, was also Albright’s student. He conducted a major excavation at Tell Balath (biblical Shechem), following the Wheeler-Kenyon method and emphasizing pottery chronology in the tradition of the Albright school. More important, Shechem was a training ground for many American archaeologists where Wright created a new school of field archaeology.

The new archaeology. In the 1960s, under the influence of the social and natural sciences, the “new archaeology” that developed tended to focus on the comprehensive study of humans as species (and not on historical issues). William G. Dever (a student and follower of G. E. Wright at the important Tel Gezer project) argued forcefully and successfully for the “liberation” of Near Eastern archaeology from biblical studies and preferred the term (prevalent today in most American schools) “Syro-Palestinian archaeology.” Today, with very few exceptions (e.g., Harvard University), most American universities offer classes in the archaeology of Syria-Palestine (this was apparently Albright’s old alternate term for biblical archaeology), not in biblical archaeology. The name of the popular magazine Biblical Archaeologist was also changed to Ancient Near Eastern Archaeology, despite protests from many of its readers.

The new archaeology began with the realization in the 1960s that much data of potential significance has been overlooked, and perhaps even vital evidence has been discarded. New questions and methods developed from the frustration that old questions have not been answered satisfactorily. The temporal and geographical horizons of the new archaeology broadened to include the Paleolithic period (c. 100,000 BC) through the Ottoman era (AD 1922), and attention is now paid to the neglected periods of Judaism and early Christianity.

More important, the composition of the dig staff broadened considerably to include a much larger body of scientists to assist in answering the new questions posed. Today, the field archaeologists (besides historians, linguists, and ceramic experts) are supported by geologists, anthropologists, paleoethnobotanists, zoologists, climatologists, hydrologists, ethnographers, and, more recently, statisticians and computer experts. It is clear that the new archaeology is done in a very interdisciplinary way. The Tell Hesban and Khirbat en-Nahas excavations (both in Jordan) are good models of this type of interdisciplinary research. Bones, seeds, and other organic materials are now saved and carefully recorded to address questions related to economic strategies, social differentiation, diet, disease, and the like. Soil and pollen samples are taken, extensive regional and environmental surveys are carried out, and material culture samples and artifacts are submitted for sophisticated analysis. It is ironic (according to Dever) that this new and “secular” archaeology, while demanding more autonomy from the Bible, promises to contribute even more to biblical studies as it grows in precision and sophistication.

The new archaeology and Syro-Palestinian archaeology of today have advantages and disadvantages. They have the advantages of staff who are better equipped and trained, as well as educated volunteers who usually have genuine interest in their work. More important, their conclusions have the advantage of being based on data that is more scientifically obtained and analyzed. Many of the digs run field schools modeled on the ones from the Gezer project (1964–1973), which trained hundreds of student volunteers. These are all good and useful for both participants and their projects, but they have led to significant rises in the costs of an excavation. Thus, a typical six-week season is estimated now to cost in excess of one hundred thousand dollars. Since the new archaeology has led to a “secularization” of biblical archaeology and churches and seminaries have gradually stopped sponsoring these projects, the funds have had to come increasingly from federal and public sources of support. The National Endowment for the Humanities (and private donors later) became the major source of funds in the 1970s.

Approaches to the Bible in Modern Archaeology

There is no doubt that the new archaeology has introduced many useful scientific improvements in the field. (Of course, these scientific improvements were embraced by both biblical and Syro-Palestinian archaeologists in the 1970s, and the distinction between these two groups has become largely imaginary.) At the same time, however, it has brought new biases against the biblical text. The Bible, in Dever’s view, was never intended as a historical document and should be viewed with “considerable suspicion” for reconstructing the history of the ancient Near East. Other archaeologists in the field (and also historians) have an even more negative attitude toward the Bible. However, it must be emphasized that all (or at least most) agree that the Bible has its role in the archaeology of Syria-Palestine. The question has to do with how the Bible should be used.

Maximalist and minimalist approaches. The two schools of thought that seem the loudest in the debate among biblical and/or Syro-Palestinian archaeologists are usually labeled “maximalist” and “minimalist.” (To these Kenneth A. Kitchen adds the label “factualist.” According to Kitchen, the agenda of a “factualist” is neither to prove nor to disprove any theory concerning the early history of Israel, but simply to examine the facts and let the data speak for itself.)

The maximalist school has a strong view of the historical reliability of Scripture and emphasizes synergy between archaeology and biblical studies. Others consider this to be a naive approach to Scripture and an uncritical acceptance of the information that it tries to communicate. The maximalists follow the scholarship of W. F. Albright and his student John Bright, and they assume that the OT speaks of historical realities. When seeking to reconstruct the history of ancient Israel, they readily and confidently refer to the biblical record as a valid and significant source for their research. They are also confident that when all the data is in, a biblical history of Israel (aided by archaeology) will exhibit a close correspondence with the real history of Israel.

The minimalist school is generally skeptical concerning the historical reliability of the biblical text. Many advocates of this approach argue that the OT was written primarily during the Hellenistic period (it certainly is postexilic), centuries after the events that it claims to describe. A community around Jerusalem created the traditions found in the Bible in order to give account for themselves and their distinctive religious notions and practices. According to this approach, any correlation between the Bible and the archaeological record is suspect a priori. When there are tensions between biblical and extrabiblical records (including archaeology), the extrabiblical records are to be preferred as evidence, and the contradictions are usually emphasized to undermine the reliability of the Bible as a historical source.

The minimalist movement has developed gradually. Although a century ago there were many who questioned the historicity of the first chapters of Genesis, most accepted the essential historicity of the patriarchs, the exodus from Egypt under Moses, the conquest of Canaan by Joshua, the historicity of David and Solomon, and the rest of the OT narrative. During the past forty years, however, serious doubt has been cast on all of these events.

The stance of the minimalists led to peculiar (and rarely settled) controversies over issues such as the legitimacy of reading “the house of David” in the Tel Dan inscription (discovered in 1993), the Siloam Tunnel inscription (which overlaps with 2 Chron. 32 and is traditionally ascribed to Hezekiah), the very existence of Jerusalem during the days of David and Solomon, and even the existence of these two kings.

A fresh approach. Is there a way to move beyond the current state of the debate? Some believe that there is hope by using a fresh approach to biblical archaeology, one that follows in the footsteps of Lawrence Stager and Philip King (see their book, Life in Biblical Israel  ). This approach does not try to reconstruct history or simply illuminate the Bible; rather, it seeks to enter into the world of the ancients to acquire a fuller understanding of Israelite society and its literary record through the combined use of artifacts, sociology, and ethnography. Textual and archaeological data are brought into a historical discourse by “selecting and interpreting them through the problematics of social history.” Thus, biblical archaeology in the older sense is making a comeback by hearkening back to the integrative works of the nineteenth century, but with vast amounts of new data. This “new biblical archaeology” should not be driven by apologetic purposes and should not aim to “prove the truth of the Bible.” It should have more modest and realistic goals, considering the limitations of archaeology (see below).

Evangelical archaeologists, confident in the truth of the Bible (which can stand by itself despite its many attacks from within and without), should have as their goal the understanding of the biblical world in its geographical, cultural, and historical setting. They should use archaeology and linguistics to correlate biblical texts and ancient artifacts against the background of the historical and geographical setting. When historical questions are posed, the cumulative evidence should lead to probability and plausibility rather than a defensive quest for final proof. This attempt to follow historical probability vis-à-vis the Bible is different from setting out a priori with a defensive Bible-proving agenda.

This new approach will not make the Scriptures say more than judicious assessment of the evidence will allow (a problem that plagues some conservative interpreters), but neither will it cast undue skepticism on the Scriptures’ historical value (the problem of the minimalists). It endeavors to pay close attention both to the literary nature and intentions of the biblical text and to the fragmentary nature of the archaeological record.

These new biblical archaeologists do not set out again “to prove the Bible.” Instead, they seek to situate the texts of the OT in their historical and cultural contexts and to demonstrate how awareness of the extrabiblical world can open new doors into the Bible. Their goals are more modest, not because of a lower view of Scripture, but rather because of a clearer understanding of the limitations and fragmentary nature of archaeology despite its considerable refinement in the recent decades.

The Limitations of Archaeology

Archaeology has limitations because of the vast amount of time and area to be covered and because of the hazards of preservation. Objects of wood, leatherwork, basketry, papyrus, and cloth rarely survive, and metals (especially precious metals) were frequently recycled. It is also important to realize that no biblical site has ever been completely excavated, and most of the excavations tend to pay greater attention to the major buildings (citadels, temples, palaces) rather than the homes of the general population.

Only in recent years have accurate methods of stratification and recording enabled comparisons to be made between sites, and the reliability of some foundational excavations in the Holy Land is rightly questioned by the finds from newer excavations (e.g., Megiddo, Gezer, and Hazor are being reexcavated in part to clarify and answer questions raised by previous excavations and debates). This is understandable because most of the foundational excavations in the Holy Land did not have access to the accurate methods of stratification, recording, and scientific analysis available today. Many useful artifacts and especially organic objects were routinely discarded in the earlier excavations.

In general, earlier levels of a site are more likely to have been disturbed by the activities of later periods, and it was very common for older buildings (and sometimes even monumental inscriptions) to be dismantled and the (stone) blocks reused for later buildings or even roads. The objects that archaeologists discover survive and are most often found by accident. Consequently, given the limitations and pitfalls of archaeology (especially the way it was done in the earliest part of the twentieth century), one must have realistic and more modest expectations about what archaeology can recover, and realize that the further one goes in time, the less archaeological information may be available for comparison and useful analysis. Add to this that some of the central characters of the Bible (e.g., Abraham, Moses, most of the judges, Ezra) were not major players in the world of their time, and that some important sites have never been excavated (e.g., Damascus, Hebron), and it becomes clear that there are considerable reasons to have more realistic and modest expectations about what archaeology can accomplish.

The role and possibility of accurately interpreting archaeological remains should also be taken into consideration, especially since there are well-documented cases in which the interpretation of the excavator has turned out to be false (e.g., the “Degenerated Ashtoreth Plaque” of R. A. S. Macalister from Gezer). Anyone who has ever participated in an archaeological excavation led by a group of experts in the field can remember debates that took place among these experts, not only about the dating of various pieces of pottery, but even about the role and dating of well-defined and visible monumental architecture. While this is understandable and desirable, and many times leads to the refinement and corrections of unwarranted early assumptions, the process shows the difficulty inherent in interpreting the fragmentary remains of a dead civilization far removed from our times and settings.

Material Remains and Written Sources

It is a sobering fact that archaeology cannot provide the basis for history. Material remains can reveal climate changes and their impact, sequences of human cultures and their products, traces of destruction and desertion, changes in building techniques and art. Nevertheless, the persons involved remain anonymous, their thoughts, motives and faith a mystery, and the specific events of their times largely unknown (e.g., the destruction by fire of Lachish II could not have been accurately dated and related without the biblical report in Jer. 34:7). It is the written documents (many times recovered through archaeology) that can reveal the names of kings and kingdoms, their dates and deeds, and the fruits of their thinking in literature. It is the testimony of these texts, rightly evaluated, that can add the “flesh and features” to the “bones” archaeology discovers (Allan Millard).

On the other hand, the material remains of life (pottery, jewelry, tools, weapons, cultic objects, architecture, etc.) as recovered through archaeology can bring color to the textual references. Nevertheless, the written sources are essential and provide the most valuable information for recovering the history and faith of any ancient nation. It is the duty of the biblical scholar and archaeologist to interpret correctly the available data from Syria-Palestine and to arrive at plausible explanations concerning the biblical world. The combination of texts (biblical and extrabiblical), material culture (archaeology), geography, and history holds considerable promise to help scholars better define the context of Scripture.

There is no doubt that this approach to archaeology holds considerable potential as it is generating more material than is possible for any person (or even school) to encompass. As one of the most quickly changing social sciences today, both in theoretical advances and new data, archaeology is and will be the source of new insights into biblical life and times. It seems that the “archaeological revolution” predicted by W. F. Albright is far from over; it probably has only begun.

The evidence for this revolution from the evangelical field is visible in various ways. The rest of this entry briefly presents some selective archaeological data that helps define the context and that complements (since the writers of the Bible were selective in their reporting), challenges, or confirms the narrative of the Bible. The data should help the interpreter of the Bible bridge the geographical, temporal, and cultural gap that leads to the ancient writer.

The Cannanite (Bronze) Age (3300–1200 BC)

Early Bronze Age. Towns with mud-brick walls begin to appear in Canaan in the Early Bronze Age I (before 3000 BC). Evidence of occupation in the third millennium is found at Beth-yerah, Beth-shan, Gezer, Jerusalem, Jericho, Arad, Megiddo, and Ai, among others. There was a difference between the pottery of the north (Beth-yerah) and that of the south, while the most striking development was that of the fine “Khirbet Kerak” ware.

Middle Bronze Age. About 2200 BC (Middle Bronze Age I) there arrived a distinctive nomadic people identified with the Amorites of the Bible (Num. 13:29; Josh. 5:1; 10:6). They had distinctive burial customs, pottery, and weapons that show connection with the city-states of Syria. It is most likely that their kings included the Asiatic “Foreign Rulers” (Hyksos) who conquered Egypt in the eighteenth century BC. This was a time of wealth and frequent warfare between cities. It seems that the Middle Bronze Age was a time when seminomadic groups (including a group called “Habiru,” who are also found in the Late Bronze Age) infiltrated the land between defended towns. It is possible that the patriarchs were among these Habiru, who infiltrated mostly the hill country and the Negev. In fact, it is demonstrable from a comparison with the eighteenth-century BC texts from Mari (on the Euphrates River) that the pastoral traditions of Genesis fit the early second-millennium BC context much better than later periods.

The towns and houses of the Middle Bronze Age were violently destroyed in the fifteenth century BC, most likely by the Egyptians, who expelled the Hyksos. Despite the trade that seems to have continued with the eastern Mediterranean (Mycenaean pottery), the hill towns of Palestine were now poorer and fewer than the coastal cities. This situation is clearly reflected in the Amarna letters between the kings of Canaan and Egypt. The major cities were reoccupied, but many of them were destroyed later in the thirteenth century.

Late Bronze Age. It is in the Late Bronze Age (c. 1550–1200 BC) that the biblical account is usually challenged by the archaeological discoveries. Even if one accepts the reasonable interpretation that Joshua burned only three cities (Jericho, Ai, Hazor) in his campaign (see Josh. 6:24; 8:28; 11:13), the evidence of destruction from both Jericho and Ai is highly questionable. Thus, while it is widely believed that Jericho was abandoned around 1325 BC, the fallen walls once thought to belong to this period were dated much earlier by Kathleen Kenyon (Early Bronze). The evidence from Ai (et-Tell) is even less promising, unless Bryan Wood is correct in his identification of Ai with Khirbet el-Maqatir.

Based on the apparent lack of change in material culture during the Late Bronze Age, mainstream archaeologists commonly classify the Israelites as dissident Canaanites who moved into the hill country.

Although it cannot be conclusively demonstrated from archaeology that the Israelites were not Canaanites but rather came to Canaan from the outside, the mainstream interpretation has serious problems of its own. There was clearly a new pattern of simple farming in the hills, characterized by four-room houses whose inhabitants used many collared-rim jars, and there is an almost complete absence of pig bones (which usually are found in the Canaanite cities) in the hill-country sites. More important, there is strong evidence that the Israelites were worshiping their own national God (YHWH) by the ninth century BC, in sharp contrast to the polytheistic religion of Canaan (as illuminated by the culture in neighboring Ugarit). The personal names of individuals in the eighth and seventh centuries BC are almost exclusively Yahwistic.

Another very significant change is the abandonment of the shrines in towns of the Late Bronze Age. Not a single site can be identified in which worship continued from the Late Bronze Age well into the Iron Age (it seems that by 1000 BC the Canaanites disappeared as an entity in the area occupied by Israel). It is highly unlikely that the Canaanites who moved from towns into the hill-country sites would have abandoned their divinities (whose need they must have felt greatly while facing the uncertainties of the wilderness), and it is even more unlikely that people who had come from different towns with different deities would have accepted almost universally a new patron deity of obscure provenance. The continuity in material culture of a nation that was to take over the homes and all the equipment of the Canaanites should not be surprising in light of the commands of the Bible (Deut. 6:10–11). The almost universal rise of the worship of the God of Israel, and the mention of Israel as a group of people in the Stela of Merneptah (c. 1208 BC), argue forcefully that the Israelites were not really Canaanites.

The Israelite (Iron) Age (1200–586 BC)

By the twelfth century, the Philistine settlement of southwest Canaan is attested by a new type of pottery with Late Mycenaean affinities. This new type of pottery was found throughout Philistia, the Shephelah, and as far north as Joppa. Wealthy and well-constructed Canaanite cities held out for at least another century (Beth-Shean, Gezer, and Megiddo?). The evidence for Israelites comes from the small villages throughout the hill country and Galilee. Traditionally, as mentioned above, they are recognized by their four-room houses, large number of storage pits for grain, large storage jars with thick-collared rims, and preference for terracing hillsides for farming.

Archaeologically, it is very difficult to at­trib­ute the construction of cities to any king of the united monarchy (but see the recent discovery below). Saul had a citadel at Gibeah (Tell el-Fûl), and the first fortification there has been attributed to him. It shows the adoption of a new fortification system of casemate wall, characteristic of this period. Similar casemate walls have been found at Shechem, Beth-shemesh, and Beit Mirsim (and later even in Moab). A small town at Megiddo, whose houses form a defensive ring around the perimeter of the mound, has been attributed to David.

Though 1 Kings 9:15 reports how Solomon built up Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer, the dating of the six-chambered gates found in all of these sites and the related walls is still being debated. A much more recent excavation from Khirbat en-Nahas in Jordan has found industrial-scale production of copper in a region and at a time that correlates well with the narrative about Solomon (see 1 Kings 7:46).

Another very recent and impressive find comes from Khirbet Qeiyafa (most likely Shaaraim [Josh. 15:36; 1 Sam. 17:52; 1 Chron. 4:31–32]). This site, located in the western part of the high Shephelah (near Azekah), was recently excavated by Yosef Garfinkel and Saar Ganor of Hebrew University, Jerusalem. On the basis of four burnt olive pits tested at Oxford University, the excavators dated this fortified city to the time of David. They concluded that the massive construction of the city wall (which required two hundred thousand tons of stone) supports the existence of a centralized political organization, a state—a conclusion that has far-reaching implications for the disputed chronology of Iron Age IIA (1000–900 BC). They also found a five-line inscription, indicating that writing was practiced in the region. This inscription is important because it seems to be the longest proto-Canaanite inscription ever found, and the earliest Hebrew inscription known to date.

The Hellenistic-Roman Period (332 BC and Following)

Herod the Great (37–4 BC) was the ambitious ruler who carried through most of the grand building projects that still dot the Holy Land today. At Jerusalem, which is still being excavated, the massive walls that he built for the platform of the temple are still visible today both above and below the ground. Other ruins associated with Herod have been found at Caesarea, Jericho, Herodium (near Bethlehem), Masada, and also in Jordan.

One of the most important inscriptions for NT studies (especially the Gospels) was found by the Italian excavators of Caesarea. These excavators found that the inscription refers to Pontius Pilate, prefect of Judea. Other inscriptions from Greece and Turkey are connected with the events described in Acts and Paul’s letters. Thus, in Corinth a door inscription (“Synagogue of the Hebrews”) may indicate the place where Paul preached (Acts 18:4). Excavations there revealed a text naming Erastus as a benefactor. This may be the city treasurer of Rom. 16:23. Near Lystra inscriptions record the dedication to Zeus of a statue of Hermes by some Lycaonians, and nearby was a stone altar for Zeus and Hermes. This explains the identification of Barnabas with Zeus (Jupiter) and Paul with Hermes (Mercury) in Acts 14:11–12.

It is clear from the selective sample of data presented here that the field of archaeology has contributed considerably to the context and understanding of the biblical world. All the signs and recent excavations suggest that there are continuing and exciting prospects to be found in the newer (biblical) archaeology.

Archaeology is the scientific study of the material remains of past human life and activities. It can also be described as the procedure by which ancient artifacts are recovered, identified, and interpreted. Archaeology deals with both the prehistorical and historical periods and encompasses both written (epigraphical) and unwritten (artifactual) discoveries. Even though literary remains (inscriptions, ostraca [potsherds], seals) are typically the subject of other disciplines, archaeological investigation usually is responsible for their discovery. Without archaeology much of the available written evidence would have remained buried forever in the ground. Unwritten materials include everything made by humans, such as fortifications, pottery, tools, jewelry, and weapons.

Biblical archaeology more narrowly focuses on the material remains of Israel and its neighboring countries that relate to the biblical period and narrative. For example, ancient texts recovered from sites such as Mari, Ugarit, Ebla, and Amarna shed valuable light on the biblical record and on the history and religion of the ancient Near East. Biblical archaeology may be understood as the process of correlating archaeological evidence with the biblical record. Archaeology and the Bible are closely related because they inform each other. Thus, even though archaeology and biblical studies are independent disciplines, they are certainly interrelated.

The History of Biblical Archaeology

To understand better the meaning of biblical archaeology, it is necessary to briefly trace its history. Before the 1800s little was known about the Bible’s background, despite its central role in the religion and culture of the world, because the Bible was the primary source for access to the history of ancient Israel and its neighbors. There were few sources to which the Scripture historians could appeal besides the apocryphal writings and the works of Josephus, because the early Greek historians (Herodotus and Thucydides) were of limited value, given their interest in the “major players” of history.

The discovery of the Rosetta Stone (dated 196 BC) in 1799 and its decipherment in 1822 by J. F. Champollion opened wide the doors to ancient Egypt’s history. Within twenty-five years, by the decipherment of Akkadian cuneiform by Henry Rawlinson (1846), the world had the key to reading and interpreting thousands of tablets and monumental texts from ancient Babylonia, Assyria, and even the land of the Hittites. These two major developments allowed the voices from the ancient world of the Bible to speak once more and encouraged historians to look at the Bible as supported by the background data coming from the rest of the ancient Near East. As a result of these developments, a new interest was kindled in ancient Near Eastern cultures and the material remains (realia) that they left behind, coupled with a renewed interest in the setting of the biblical text.

Initial excavations of biblical sites. The beginnings of scientific exploration of Palestine can be traced to 1838 when American Edward Robinson (geographer and explorer) aided by the Arabist Eli Smith undertook a historic trip to the Holy Land and succeeded in identifying over one hundred biblical sites, effectively laying the foundations for biblical archaeology and geography. This led to the establishment of the British Palestine Exploration Fund in 1865 for the purpose of exploring Palestine systematically and scientifically, and to several of the geographic surveys of western Palestine and Transjordan.

The beginning of major excavations of biblical sites was not far behind, and in 1890 William M. F. Petrie (a renowned Egyptologist then) initiated what is widely regarded as the first modern archaeological excavation in the Holy Land. He excavated Tell el-Hesi (identification still uncertain) in the northern Negev, and his work underlies archaeological inquiry in the Holy Land to this day. More specifically, Petrie laid the foundations of modern archaeology by his application of stratigraphy and ceramic typology.

Stratigraphy is the technique of digging a tell (a cone-shaped mound that contains the remains of successive human occupation over a long period of time) layer by layer while carefully separating and recording the contents of each occupational layer. This technique tries to untangle these layers in the reverse order (the older layers of occupation are always below the newer layers) of their deposition and to reconstruct the history of a site period by period.

Typology is the technique of classifying artifacts based on their external characteristics (shape, ware, and decoration). Pottery is considered an accurate tool for dating the occupational layers of a tell, and ceramic typology is the art of charting changes in local pottery styles. By analyzing the pottery lying within successive layers at Hesi, Petrie was able to construct a relative chronological framework for Palestine. To arrive at a more absolute chronology, the researchers from Palestine usually need (especially in the earlier periods) to correlate their findings with similar styles from neighboring areas, such as Egypt and Mesopotamia, where there are available written records and astronomically fixed dates.

Before World War I, the first and only American excavation in Palestine that deserves mention is that of George A. Reisner and architect Clarence S. Fisher between 1908 and 1910 at Sebastiyeh (biblical Samaria). The rest are usually considered to have resembled “treasure hunts.” By the use of systematic digging and recording in Palestine, the Reisner-Fisher method, which was far more comprehensive and meticulous than Petrie’s, greatly improved Palestinian archaeology.

The first golden age. The “golden age” of American excavation in Palestine followed a few decades later, after World War I in the 1920s and 1930s. Numerous and well-financed archaeological digs started at the following biblical sites: Ai, Bethel, Beth-shean, Beth-shemesh, Beth-zur, Debir, Gibeah, Jericho, Mizpah, Samaria, Shechem, and others. All of these excavations, however, were overshadowed by the work of Orientalist W. F. Albright at Tell Beit Mirsim (identity still disputed, but perhaps Debir).

It was Albright and those of the American school in Jerusalem (now the Albright Institute of Archaeology) who dominated the scene in these formative years. Albright refined Petrie’s methodology and integrated very well archaeology, biblical research, and ancient Near Eastern studies, thus establishing biblical (and Palestinian) archaeology as a discipline in its own right. He also envisioned an “archaeological revolution” that would open up the lands, peoples, and lost sites of the ancient Near East so that the Bible would be better understood and also gain new credibility. He certainly was reacting against the spirit of his time, when sterile debates of textual and literary criticism (especially of the skeptical variety) were prevalent in both European and American liberalism, and this seems to have led some to believe that archaeology’s primary function was to “prove the Bible true.”

The second golden age. A second “golden age” of biblical archaeology is usually considered to have arrived after World War II when various foreign teams worked throughout the Middle East in cooperation with local archaeologists, a trend that continues today. The archaeology of Palestine advanced rapidly, with significant improvements in the techniques of digging and recording. The greatest influence on archaeological method at this time belongs to Kathleen Kenyon (English excavator of Jericho [Tell es-Sultan]), whose stratigraphical method (known as the Wheeler-Kenyon method) is used even today by excavators, with modifications. Other important archaeologists who contributed significantly to the biblical archaeology movement are Yigael Yadin of Israel and G. E. Wright of the United States.

During the height of its prominence and promise, biblical archaeology became an important component for the biblical theology movement and also for Christian apologetics (especially as represented by Joseph Free of Wheaton College). In fact, one of the greatest theologians in the biblical theology movement, G. E. Wright, was also Albright’s student. He conducted a major excavation at Tell Balath (biblical Shechem), following the Wheeler-Kenyon method and emphasizing pottery chronology in the tradition of the Albright school. More important, Shechem was a training ground for many American archaeologists where Wright created a new school of field archaeology.

The new archaeology. In the 1960s, under the influence of the social and natural sciences, the “new archaeology” that developed tended to focus on the comprehensive study of humans as species (and not on historical issues). William G. Dever (a student and follower of G. E. Wright at the important Tel Gezer project) argued forcefully and successfully for the “liberation” of Near Eastern archaeology from biblical studies and preferred the term (prevalent today in most American schools) “Syro-Palestinian archaeology.” Today, with very few exceptions (e.g., Harvard University), most American universities offer classes in the archaeology of Syria-Palestine (this was apparently Albright’s old alternate term for biblical archaeology), not in biblical archaeology. The name of the popular magazine Biblical Archaeologist was also changed to Ancient Near Eastern Archaeology, despite protests from many of its readers.

The new archaeology began with the realization in the 1960s that much data of potential significance has been overlooked, and perhaps even vital evidence has been discarded. New questions and methods developed from the frustration that old questions have not been answered satisfactorily. The temporal and geographical horizons of the new archaeology broadened to include the Paleolithic period (c. 100,000 BC) through the Ottoman era (AD 1922), and attention is now paid to the neglected periods of Judaism and early Christianity.

More important, the composition of the dig staff broadened considerably to include a much larger body of scientists to assist in answering the new questions posed. Today, the field archaeologists (besides historians, linguists, and ceramic experts) are supported by geologists, anthropologists, paleoethnobotanists, zoologists, climatologists, hydrologists, ethnographers, and, more recently, statisticians and computer experts. It is clear that the new archaeology is done in a very interdisciplinary way. The Tell Hesban and Khirbat en-Nahas excavations (both in Jordan) are good models of this type of interdisciplinary research. Bones, seeds, and other organic materials are now saved and carefully recorded to address questions related to economic strategies, social differentiation, diet, disease, and the like. Soil and pollen samples are taken, extensive regional and environmental surveys are carried out, and material culture samples and artifacts are submitted for sophisticated analysis. It is ironic (according to Dever) that this new and “secular” archaeology, while demanding more autonomy from the Bible, promises to contribute even more to biblical studies as it grows in precision and sophistication.

The new archaeology and Syro-Palestinian archaeology of today have advantages and disadvantages. They have the advantages of staff who are better equipped and trained, as well as educated volunteers who usually have genuine interest in their work. More important, their conclusions have the advantage of being based on data that is more scientifically obtained and analyzed. Many of the digs run field schools modeled on the ones from the Gezer project (1964–1973), which trained hundreds of student volunteers. These are all good and useful for both participants and their projects, but they have led to significant rises in the costs of an excavation. Thus, a typical six-week season is estimated now to cost in excess of one hundred thousand dollars. Since the new archaeology has led to a “secularization” of biblical archaeology and churches and seminaries have gradually stopped sponsoring these projects, the funds have had to come increasingly from federal and public sources of support. The National Endowment for the Humanities (and private donors later) became the major source of funds in the 1970s.

Approaches to the Bible in Modern Archaeology

There is no doubt that the new archaeology has introduced many useful scientific improvements in the field. (Of course, these scientific improvements were embraced by both biblical and Syro-Palestinian archaeologists in the 1970s, and the distinction between these two groups has become largely imaginary.) At the same time, however, it has brought new biases against the biblical text. The Bible, in Dever’s view, was never intended as a historical document and should be viewed with “considerable suspicion” for reconstructing the history of the ancient Near East. Other archaeologists in the field (and also historians) have an even more negative attitude toward the Bible. However, it must be emphasized that all (or at least most) agree that the Bible has its role in the archaeology of Syria-Palestine. The question has to do with how the Bible should be used.

Maximalist and minimalist approaches. The two schools of thought that seem the loudest in the debate among biblical and/or Syro-Palestinian archaeologists are usually labeled “maximalist” and “minimalist.” (To these Kenneth A. Kitchen adds the label “factualist.” According to Kitchen, the agenda of a “factualist” is neither to prove nor to disprove any theory concerning the early history of Israel, but simply to examine the facts and let the data speak for itself.)

The maximalist school has a strong view of the historical reliability of Scripture and emphasizes synergy between archaeology and biblical studies. Others consider this to be a naive approach to Scripture and an uncritical acceptance of the information that it tries to communicate. The maximalists follow the scholarship of W. F. Albright and his student John Bright, and they assume that the OT speaks of historical realities. When seeking to reconstruct the history of ancient Israel, they readily and confidently refer to the biblical record as a valid and significant source for their research. They are also confident that when all the data is in, a biblical history of Israel (aided by archaeology) will exhibit a close correspondence with the real history of Israel.

The minimalist school is generally skeptical concerning the historical reliability of the biblical text. Many advocates of this approach argue that the OT was written primarily during the Hellenistic period (it certainly is postexilic), centuries after the events that it claims to describe. A community around Jerusalem created the traditions found in the Bible in order to give account for themselves and their distinctive religious notions and practices. According to this approach, any correlation between the Bible and the archaeological record is suspect a priori. When there are tensions between biblical and extrabiblical records (including archaeology), the extrabiblical records are to be preferred as evidence, and the contradictions are usually emphasized to undermine the reliability of the Bible as a historical source.

The minimalist movement has developed gradually. Although a century ago there were many who questioned the historicity of the first chapters of Genesis, most accepted the essential historicity of the patriarchs, the exodus from Egypt under Moses, the conquest of Canaan by Joshua, the historicity of David and Solomon, and the rest of the OT narrative. During the past forty years, however, serious doubt has been cast on all of these events.

The stance of the minimalists led to peculiar (and rarely settled) controversies over issues such as the legitimacy of reading “the house of David” in the Tel Dan inscription (discovered in 1993), the Siloam Tunnel inscription (which overlaps with 2 Chron. 32 and is traditionally ascribed to Hezekiah), the very existence of Jerusalem during the days of David and Solomon, and even the existence of these two kings.

A fresh approach. Is there a way to move beyond the current state of the debate? Some believe that there is hope by using a fresh approach to biblical archaeology, one that follows in the footsteps of Lawrence Stager and Philip King (see their book, Life in Biblical Israel  ). This approach does not try to reconstruct history or simply illuminate the Bible; rather, it seeks to enter into the world of the ancients to acquire a fuller understanding of Israelite society and its literary record through the combined use of artifacts, sociology, and ethnography. Textual and archaeological data are brought into a historical discourse by “selecting and interpreting them through the problematics of social history.” Thus, biblical archaeology in the older sense is making a comeback by hearkening back to the integrative works of the nineteenth century, but with vast amounts of new data. This “new biblical archaeology” should not be driven by apologetic purposes and should not aim to “prove the truth of the Bible.” It should have more modest and realistic goals, considering the limitations of archaeology (see below).

Evangelical archaeologists, confident in the truth of the Bible (which can stand by itself despite its many attacks from within and without), should have as their goal the understanding of the biblical world in its geographical, cultural, and historical setting. They should use archaeology and linguistics to correlate biblical texts and ancient artifacts against the background of the historical and geographical setting. When historical questions are posed, the cumulative evidence should lead to probability and plausibility rather than a defensive quest for final proof. This attempt to follow historical probability vis-à-vis the Bible is different from setting out a priori with a defensive Bible-proving agenda.

This new approach will not make the Scriptures say more than judicious assessment of the evidence will allow (a problem that plagues some conservative interpreters), but neither will it cast undue skepticism on the Scriptures’ historical value (the problem of the minimalists). It endeavors to pay close attention both to the literary nature and intentions of the biblical text and to the fragmentary nature of the archaeological record.

These new biblical archaeologists do not set out again “to prove the Bible.” Instead, they seek to situate the texts of the OT in their historical and cultural contexts and to demonstrate how awareness of the extrabiblical world can open new doors into the Bible. Their goals are more modest, not because of a lower view of Scripture, but rather because of a clearer understanding of the limitations and fragmentary nature of archaeology despite its considerable refinement in the recent decades.

The Limitations of Archaeology

Archaeology has limitations because of the vast amount of time and area to be covered and because of the hazards of preservation. Objects of wood, leatherwork, basketry, papyrus, and cloth rarely survive, and metals (especially precious metals) were frequently recycled. It is also important to realize that no biblical site has ever been completely excavated, and most of the excavations tend to pay greater attention to the major buildings (citadels, temples, palaces) rather than the homes of the general population.

Only in recent years have accurate methods of stratification and recording enabled comparisons to be made between sites, and the reliability of some foundational excavations in the Holy Land is rightly questioned by the finds from newer excavations (e.g., Megiddo, Gezer, and Hazor are being reexcavated in part to clarify and answer questions raised by previous excavations and debates). This is understandable because most of the foundational excavations in the Holy Land did not have access to the accurate methods of stratification, recording, and scientific analysis available today. Many useful artifacts and especially organic objects were routinely discarded in the earlier excavations.

In general, earlier levels of a site are more likely to have been disturbed by the activities of later periods, and it was very common for older buildings (and sometimes even monumental inscriptions) to be dismantled and the (stone) blocks reused for later buildings or even roads. The objects that archaeologists discover survive and are most often found by accident. Consequently, given the limitations and pitfalls of archaeology (especially the way it was done in the earliest part of the twentieth century), one must have realistic and more modest expectations about what archaeology can recover, and realize that the further one goes in time, the less archaeological information may be available for comparison and useful analysis. Add to this that some of the central characters of the Bible (e.g., Abraham, Moses, most of the judges, Ezra) were not major players in the world of their time, and that some important sites have never been excavated (e.g., Damascus, Hebron), and it becomes clear that there are considerable reasons to have more realistic and modest expectations about what archaeology can accomplish.

The role and possibility of accurately interpreting archaeological remains should also be taken into consideration, especially since there are well-documented cases in which the interpretation of the excavator has turned out to be false (e.g., the “Degenerated Ashtoreth Plaque” of R. A. S. Macalister from Gezer). Anyone who has ever participated in an archaeological excavation led by a group of experts in the field can remember debates that took place among these experts, not only about the dating of various pieces of pottery, but even about the role and dating of well-defined and visible monumental architecture. While this is understandable and desirable, and many times leads to the refinement and corrections of unwarranted early assumptions, the process shows the difficulty inherent in interpreting the fragmentary remains of a dead civilization far removed from our times and settings.

Material Remains and Written Sources

It is a sobering fact that archaeology cannot provide the basis for history. Material remains can reveal climate changes and their impact, sequences of human cultures and their products, traces of destruction and desertion, changes in building techniques and art. Nevertheless, the persons involved remain anonymous, their thoughts, motives and faith a mystery, and the specific events of their times largely unknown (e.g., the destruction by fire of Lachish II could not have been accurately dated and related without the biblical report in Jer. 34:7). It is the written documents (many times recovered through archaeology) that can reveal the names of kings and kingdoms, their dates and deeds, and the fruits of their thinking in literature. It is the testimony of these texts, rightly evaluated, that can add the “flesh and features” to the “bones” archaeology discovers (Allan Millard).

On the other hand, the material remains of life (pottery, jewelry, tools, weapons, cultic objects, architecture, etc.) as recovered through archaeology can bring color to the textual references. Nevertheless, the written sources are essential and provide the most valuable information for recovering the history and faith of any ancient nation. It is the duty of the biblical scholar and archaeologist to interpret correctly the available data from Syria-Palestine and to arrive at plausible explanations concerning the biblical world. The combination of texts (biblical and extrabiblical), material culture (archaeology), geography, and history holds considerable promise to help scholars better define the context of Scripture.

There is no doubt that this approach to archaeology holds considerable potential as it is generating more material than is possible for any person (or even school) to encompass. As one of the most quickly changing social sciences today, both in theoretical advances and new data, archaeology is and will be the source of new insights into biblical life and times. It seems that the “archaeological revolution” predicted by W. F. Albright is far from over; it probably has only begun.

The evidence for this revolution from the evangelical field is visible in various ways. The rest of this entry briefly presents some selective archaeological data that helps define the context and that complements (since the writers of the Bible were selective in their reporting), challenges, or confirms the narrative of the Bible. The data should help the interpreter of the Bible bridge the geographical, temporal, and cultural gap that leads to the ancient writer.

The Cannanite (Bronze) Age (3300–1200 BC)

Early Bronze Age. Towns with mud-brick walls begin to appear in Canaan in the Early Bronze Age I (before 3000 BC). Evidence of occupation in the third millennium is found at Beth-yerah, Beth-shan, Gezer, Jerusalem, Jericho, Arad, Megiddo, and Ai, among others. There was a difference between the pottery of the north (Beth-yerah) and that of the south, while the most striking development was that of the fine “Khirbet Kerak” ware.

Middle Bronze Age. About 2200 BC (Middle Bronze Age I) there arrived a distinctive nomadic people identified with the Amorites of the Bible (Num. 13:29; Josh. 5:1; 10:6). They had distinctive burial customs, pottery, and weapons that show connection with the city-states of Syria. It is most likely that their kings included the Asiatic “Foreign Rulers” (Hyksos) who conquered Egypt in the eighteenth century BC. This was a time of wealth and frequent warfare between cities. It seems that the Middle Bronze Age was a time when seminomadic groups (including a group called “Habiru,” who are also found in the Late Bronze Age) infiltrated the land between defended towns. It is possible that the patriarchs were among these Habiru, who infiltrated mostly the hill country and the Negev. In fact, it is demonstrable from a comparison with the eighteenth-century BC texts from Mari (on the Euphrates River) that the pastoral traditions of Genesis fit the early second-millennium BC context much better than later periods.

The towns and houses of the Middle Bronze Age were violently destroyed in the fifteenth century BC, most likely by the Egyptians, who expelled the Hyksos. Despite the trade that seems to have continued with the eastern Mediterranean (Mycenaean pottery), the hill towns of Palestine were now poorer and fewer than the coastal cities. This situation is clearly reflected in the Amarna letters between the kings of Canaan and Egypt. The major cities were reoccupied, but many of them were destroyed later in the thirteenth century.

Late Bronze Age. It is in the Late Bronze Age (c. 1550–1200 BC) that the biblical account is usually challenged by the archaeological discoveries. Even if one accepts the reasonable interpretation that Joshua burned only three cities (Jericho, Ai, Hazor) in his campaign (see Josh. 6:24; 8:28; 11:13), the evidence of destruction from both Jericho and Ai is highly questionable. Thus, while it is widely believed that Jericho was abandoned around 1325 BC, the fallen walls once thought to belong to this period were dated much earlier by Kathleen Kenyon (Early Bronze). The evidence from Ai (et-Tell) is even less promising, unless Bryan Wood is correct in his identification of Ai with Khirbet el-Maqatir.

Based on the apparent lack of change in material culture during the Late Bronze Age, mainstream archaeologists commonly classify the Israelites as dissident Canaanites who moved into the hill country.

Although it cannot be conclusively demonstrated from archaeology that the Israelites were not Canaanites but rather came to Canaan from the outside, the mainstream interpretation has serious problems of its own. There was clearly a new pattern of simple farming in the hills, characterized by four-room houses whose inhabitants used many collared-rim jars, and there is an almost complete absence of pig bones (which usually are found in the Canaanite cities) in the hill-country sites. More important, there is strong evidence that the Israelites were worshiping their own national God (YHWH) by the ninth century BC, in sharp contrast to the polytheistic religion of Canaan (as illuminated by the culture in neighboring Ugarit). The personal names of individuals in the eighth and seventh centuries BC are almost exclusively Yahwistic.

Another very significant change is the abandonment of the shrines in towns of the Late Bronze Age. Not a single site can be identified in which worship continued from the Late Bronze Age well into the Iron Age (it seems that by 1000 BC the Canaanites disappeared as an entity in the area occupied by Israel). It is highly unlikely that the Canaanites who moved from towns into the hill-country sites would have abandoned their divinities (whose need they must have felt greatly while facing the uncertainties of the wilderness), and it is even more unlikely that people who had come from different towns with different deities would have accepted almost universally a new patron deity of obscure provenance. The continuity in material culture of a nation that was to take over the homes and all the equipment of the Canaanites should not be surprising in light of the commands of the Bible (Deut. 6:10–11). The almost universal rise of the worship of the God of Israel, and the mention of Israel as a group of people in the Stela of Merneptah (c. 1208 BC), argue forcefully that the Israelites were not really Canaanites.

The Israelite (Iron) Age (1200–586 BC)

By the twelfth century, the Philistine settlement of southwest Canaan is attested by a new type of pottery with Late Mycenaean affinities. This new type of pottery was found throughout Philistia, the Shephelah, and as far north as Joppa. Wealthy and well-constructed Canaanite cities held out for at least another century (Beth-Shean, Gezer, and Megiddo?). The evidence for Israelites comes from the small villages throughout the hill country and Galilee. Traditionally, as mentioned above, they are recognized by their four-room houses, large number of storage pits for grain, large storage jars with thick-collared rims, and preference for terracing hillsides for farming.

Archaeologically, it is very difficult to at­trib­ute the construction of cities to any king of the united monarchy (but see the recent discovery below). Saul had a citadel at Gibeah (Tell el-Fûl), and the first fortification there has been attributed to him. It shows the adoption of a new fortification system of casemate wall, characteristic of this period. Similar casemate walls have been found at Shechem, Beth-shemesh, and Beit Mirsim (and later even in Moab). A small town at Megiddo, whose houses form a defensive ring around the perimeter of the mound, has been attributed to David.

Though 1 Kings 9:15 reports how Solomon built up Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer, the dating of the six-chambered gates found in all of these sites and the related walls is still being debated. A much more recent excavation from Khirbat en-Nahas in Jordan has found industrial-scale production of copper in a region and at a time that correlates well with the narrative about Solomon (see 1 Kings 7:46).

Another very recent and impressive find comes from Khirbet Qeiyafa (most likely Shaaraim [Josh. 15:36; 1 Sam. 17:52; 1 Chron. 4:31–32]). This site, located in the western part of the high Shephelah (near Azekah), was recently excavated by Yosef Garfinkel and Saar Ganor of Hebrew University, Jerusalem. On the basis of four burnt olive pits tested at Oxford University, the excavators dated this fortified city to the time of David. They concluded that the massive construction of the city wall (which required two hundred thousand tons of stone) supports the existence of a centralized political organization, a state—a conclusion that has far-reaching implications for the disputed chronology of Iron Age IIA (1000–900 BC). They also found a five-line inscription, indicating that writing was practiced in the region. This inscription is important because it seems to be the longest proto-Canaanite inscription ever found, and the earliest Hebrew inscription known to date.

The Hellenistic-Roman Period (332 BC and Following)

Herod the Great (37–4 BC) was the ambitious ruler who carried through most of the grand building projects that still dot the Holy Land today. At Jerusalem, which is still being excavated, the massive walls that he built for the platform of the temple are still visible today both above and below the ground. Other ruins associated with Herod have been found at Caesarea, Jericho, Herodium (near Bethlehem), Masada, and also in Jordan.

One of the most important inscriptions for NT studies (especially the Gospels) was found by the Italian excavators of Caesarea. These excavators found that the inscription refers to Pontius Pilate, prefect of Judea. Other inscriptions from Greece and Turkey are connected with the events described in Acts and Paul’s letters. Thus, in Corinth a door inscription (“Synagogue of the Hebrews”) may indicate the place where Paul preached (Acts 18:4). Excavations there revealed a text naming Erastus as a benefactor. This may be the city treasurer of Rom. 16:23. Near Lystra inscriptions record the dedication to Zeus of a statue of Hermes by some Lycaonians, and nearby was a stone altar for Zeus and Hermes. This explains the identification of Barnabas with Zeus (Jupiter) and Paul with Hermes (Mercury) in Acts 14:11–12.

It is clear from the selective sample of data presented here that the field of archaeology has contributed considerably to the context and understanding of the biblical world. All the signs and recent excavations suggest that there are continuing and exciting prospects to be found in the newer (biblical) archaeology.

One of five principal cities of the Philistines (Josh. 13:3). Ashdod was situated in the coastal plane of Canaan, roughly two and one-half miles inland from the Mediterranean Sea, near the main coastal route sometimes called the “Way of the Philistines.” The site has been identified (Tel Ashdod) and extensively investigated.

Historical Overview

Ashdod predates the Philistine presence in the Eastern Mediterranean. The first fortified settlement dates to the Middle Bronze Age (2200–1550 BC). Records from Ugarit (Late Bronze Age [1550–1200 BC]) reveal that Ashdod participated in the trading of dyed garments and wool (substantiated by the presence of murex shells in situ), and that its population was largely West Semitic. Discovery of part of a stone doorjamb bearing a partial hieroglyphic inscription denoting a high-ranking Egyptian official suggests that Ashdod was additionally the site of an Egyptian stronghold palace. Incursion of Sea Peoples into the region began in the late thirteenth century BC. A layer of ash indicates that Ashdod was partly destroyed at this time. This is followed by evidence of a Philistine presence at Ashdod beginning in the early twelfth century BC.

The Philistines thrived at Ashdod during the Early Iron Age (1200–1000 BC). Expansions of the walls about the acropolis and settlement of the lower city indicate a growing population. Destruction of the city’s fortifications during the first half of the tenth century BC may be attributed to Pharaoh Siamon (960 BC) or possibly to a campaign later in David’s reign.

Ashdod’s fortifications were rebuilt, although they were partly destroyed c. 760 BC (perhaps by Uzziah [2 Chron. 26:6]). In 712/711 BC the Assyrian army, under orders from Sargon II, sacked Ashdod (Isa. 20:1). The remains of some three thousand persons attest to this event, as do three fragments from a victory stela discovered at the acropolis. Ashdod was an Assyrian vassal until Assyria’s collapse, at which point Ashdod became vulnerable to Egypt, then to Babylon. Pharaoh Psamtik I sacked the city after a lengthy siege (c. 640 BC), and Nebuchadnezzar II later subjugated it (c. 600 BC). Items bearing Hebrew inscriptions indicate trade with Judah during the latter seventh century BC.

Ashdod declined during the Babylonian period (626–539 BC) but regained prominence under the Persians, becoming an administrative center for the region. Ashdod (now called “Azotus”) further prospered during the Hellenistic period (post-332 BC), up to the time it was captured by John Hyrcanus (114 BC). The town again dwindled in significance during the Roman period relative to the nearby port, Ashdod Yam, and was destroyed during the First Jewish Revolt (AD 67), although habitation persisted into the Byzantine period.

Ashdod in the Bible

Ashdod is mentioned in relation to both the overall success of the Israelite conquest of Canaan (Josh. 11:22; the feared Anakim remained only in Philistine territory [see Num. 13:28]) and its unfinished nature (Josh. 13:3). Joshua 15:46–47 lists Ashdod in the territory allotted to Judah. That this territory remained largely unconquered by Israel features prominently in the narrative of Judges and Samuel.

When the Ark of the Covenant was captured by the Philistines (1 Sam. 4), it was taken to Dagon’s temple at Ashdod (5:1–2). Excavation of Tel Ashdod has yet to identify this cult site, although an incense stand portraying a procession of musicians may pertain to Dagon’s cult (see 1 Sam. 10:5). In 1 Macc. 10:84 is reported Jonathan’s burning of Azotus (Ashdod) and destruction of Dagon’s temple during the Hellenistic period.

Among the prophets, oracles portend the destruction of Ashdod and the other Philistine cities (Amos 1:6–8; Zeph. 2:4; Zech. 9:5–6). Jeremiah 25:20 mentions “the people left at Ashdod,” possibly alluding to Psamtik I’s destruction of the city. Conspicuously absent is any mention of Gath, which by this time had been subjugated or destroyed (1 Chron. 1:18; 2 Chron. 26:6; also 2 Kings 12:17).

Reference is also made to Ashdodites. Notably, “the people of Ashdod” were among those opposed to the rebuilding of Jerusalem’s walls during the postexilic period (Neh. 4:7). Intermarriage with the “women from Ashdod” was common among returning Jews (Neh. 13:23), and “the language of Ashdod” was spoken by their children (Neh. 13:24).

Overall, the biblical testimony concerning Ashdod coheres remarkably well with the archaeological evidence from Tel Ashdod.

The biblical corpus known as the Pentateuch consists of the first five books of the OT: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The word “Pentateuch” comes from two Greek words (penta [“five”] and teuchos [“scroll case, book”]) and is a designation attested in the early church fathers. The collection is also commonly known as the “Five Books of Moses,” “the Law of Moses,” or simply the “Law,” reflecting the traditional Jewish name “Torah,” meaning “law” or “instruction.” The Torah is the first of three major sections that comprise the Hebrew Bible (Torah, Nebiim, Ketubim [Law, Prophets, Writings]); thus for both Jewish and Christian traditions it represents the introduction to the Bible as a whole as well as its interpretive foundation.

The English names for the books of the Pentateuch came from the Latin Vulgate, based on the Greek Septuagint. These appellations are mainly descriptive of their content. Genesis derives from “generations” or “origin,” Exodus means “going out,” Leviticus represents priestly (Levitical) service, Numbers refers to the censuses taken in the book, and Deuteronomy indicates “second law” because of Moses’ rehearsal of God’s commands (see Deut. 17:18). The Hebrew designations derive from opening words in each book. Bereshit (Genesis) means “in the beginning”; Shemot (Exodus), “[these are] the names”; Wayyiqra’ (Leviticus), “and he called”; Bemidbar (Numbers), “in the desert”; and Debarim (Deuteronomy), “[these are] the words.”

Referring to the Pentateuch as “Torah” or the “Law” reflects the climactic reception of God’s commands at Mount Sinai, which were to govern Israel’s life and worship in the promised land, including their journey to get there. However, calling the Pentateuch the “Law” can be a bit misleading because there are relatively few passages that simply list a set of commands, and all law passages are set within a broad narrative. The Pentateuch is a grand story that begins on a universal scale with the creation of the cosmos and ends on the plains of Moab as the reader anticipates the fulfillment of God’s plan to redeem a fallen world through his chosen people. The books offer distinct qualities and content, but they are also inherently dependent upon one another, as the narrative remains unbroken through the five volumes. Genesis ends with Jacob’s family in Egypt, and, though many years have passed, this is where Exodus begins. Leviticus outlines cultic life at the tabernacle (constructed at the end of Exodus) and even begins without a clear subject (“And he called . . .”), which requires the reader to supply “the Lord” from the last verse of Exodus. Numbers begins with an account of Israel’s fighting men as the nation prepares to leave Sinai, and Deuteronomy is Moses’ farewell address to the nation on the cusp of the promised land.

Authorship and Composition

Although the Pentateuch is technically an anonymous work, Jewish and Christian tradition attributes its authorship to Moses, the main figure of the story from Exodus to Deuteronomy. The arguments for attributing the authorship of the Pentateuch to Moses come from internal evidence within both Testaments. That Moses is responsible for at least portions of the Pentateuch is suggested by references to his explicit literary activity reflected within the narrative itself (Exod. 17:14; 24:4; 34:28; Num. 33:2; Deut. 31:9, 22, 24), if not implied in various literary formulas such as “the Lord said to Moses” (e.g., Exod. 39:1, 7, 21; Lev. 4:1; 11:1; 13:1; Num. 1:1; 2:1). Mosaic authorship receives support from the historical books, which use terms such as “the Book of the Law of Moses” in various forms and references in the preexilic history (Josh. 8:30–35; 23:6; 2 Kings 14:6) as well as the postexilic history (e.g., 2 Chron. 25:4; Ezra 6:18; Neh. 13:1). The same titles are used by NT authors (e.g., Mark 12:26; Luke 24:44; John 1:45), even referring to the Pentateuch simply by the name “Moses” at various points (e.g., Luke 16:29; 24:27; 2 Cor. 3:15).

Even with these examples, nowhere does the text explicitly state that Moses is responsible for the entire compilation of the Pentateuch or that he penned it with his own hand. Rather, a number of factors point to a later hand at work: Moses’ death and burial are referenced (Deut. 34), the conquest of Canaan is referred to as past (Deut. 2:12), and there is evidence that the names of people and places were updated and explained for later generations (e.g., “Dan” in Gen. 14:14; cf. Josh. 19:47; Judg. 18:28b–29). Based on these factors, it is reasonable to believe that the Pentateuch underwent editorial alteration as it was preserved within Jewish life and took its final shape after Moses’ lifetime.

Over the last century, the Documentary Hypothesis has dominated academic discussion of the Pentateuch’s composition. This theory was crystallized by Julius Wellhausen in his Prolegomena to the History of Israel in the late nineteenth century and posits that the Pentateuch originated from a variety of ancient sources derived from distinct authors and time periods that have been transmitted and joined through a long and complex process. Traditionally these documents are identified as J, E, D, and P. The J source is a document authored by the “Yahwist” (German, Jahwist) in Judah around 840 BC and is so called because the name “Yahweh” is used frequently in its text. The E source stands for “Elohist” because of its preference for the divine title “Elohim” and was composed in Israel around 700 BC. The D source stands for “Deuteronomy” because it reflects material found in that book; it was composed sometime around Josiah’s reform in 621 BC. The P document reflects material that priests would be concerned with in the postexilic time period, approximately 500 BC. This theory and its related forms stem from the scholarly concern over various literary characteristics such as the use of divine names; doublets and duplications in the text; observable patterns of style, terminology, and themes; and alleged discrepancies in facts, descriptions, and geographic or historical perspective.

Various documentary theories of composition have flourished over the last century of pentateuchal scholarship and still have many adherents. However, lack of scholarly agreement about the dating and character of the sources and the rise of other literary approaches to the text have many conservative and liberal scholars calling into question the accuracy and even interpretive benefit of the source theories. Moreover, if the literary observations used to create source distinctions can be explained in other ways, then the Documentary Hypothesis is significantly undermined.

In its canonical form, the pentateuchal narrative combines artistic prose, poetry, and law to tell a dramatic history spanning thousands of years. One could divide the story into six major sections: primeval history (Gen. 1–11), the patriarchs (Gen. 12–50), liberation from Egypt (Exod. 1–18), Sinai (Exod. 19:1–Num. 10:10), wilderness journey (Num. 10:11–36:13), and Moses’ farewell (Deuteronomy).

Primeval History (Gen. 1–11)

It is possible to divide Genesis into two parts based upon subject matter: the origin of creation and humankind’s call, fall, and punishment (chaps 1–11), and the origin of a family that would become God’s conduit of salvation and blessing for the world (chaps. 12–50).

The primeval history comprises essentially the first eleven chapters of Genesis, ending with the genealogy of Abraham in 11:26. Strictly speaking, 11:27 begins the patriarchal section with the sixth instance of the toledot formula found in Genesis, referencing Abraham’s father, Terah. The Hebrew phrase ’elleh toledot (“these are the generations of”) occurs in eleven places in Genesis and reflects a deliberate structural marker that one may use to divide the book into distinct episodes (2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10; 11:27; 25:12; 25:19; 36:1; 36:9; 37:2).

Genesis as we know it exhibits two distinct creation accounts in its first two chapters. Although critical scholars contend that the differing accounts reflect contradictory stories and different authors, it is just as convenient to recognize that the two stories vary in style and some content because they attempt to accomplish different aims. The first account, 1:1–2:3, is an artistic, poetic, symmetrical, and “heavenly” view of creation by a transcendent God, who spoke creation into being. In the second account, 2:4–25, God is immanently involved with creation as he is present in a garden, breathes life into Adam’s nostrils, dialogues and problem-solves, fashions Eve from Adam’s side, and bestows warnings and commands. Both perspectives are foundational for providing an accurate view of God’s interaction with creation in the rest of Scripture.

As one progresses through chapters 1–11, the story quickly changes from what God has established as “very good” to discord, sin, and shame. Chapter 3 reflects the “fall” of humanity as Adam and Eve sin in eating from the forbidden tree in direct disobedience to God. The serpent shrewdly deceives the first couple, and thus all three incur God’s curses, which extend to unlimited generations. Sin that breaks the vertical relationship between God and humanity intrinsically leads to horizontal strife between humans. Sin and disunity on the earth only intensify as one moves from the murder story of Cain and Abel in chapter 4 to the flood in chapters 5–9. Violence, evil, and disorder have so pervaded the earth that God sends a deluge to wipe out all living things, save one righteous man and his family, along with an ark full of animals. God makes the first covenant recorded in the biblical narrative with Noah (6:18), promising to save him from the flood as he commands Noah to build an ark and gather food for survival. Noah fulfills all that God has commanded (6:22; 7:5), and God remembers his promise (8:1). This is the prototypical salvation story for the rest of Scripture.

Chapter 9 reflects a new start for humanity and all living things as the creation mandate to “be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it,” first introduced in 1:28, is restated along with the reminder that humankind is made in God’s image (1:27). Bearing the image involves new responsibilities and stipulations in the postdiluvian era (9:2–6). There will be enmity between humans and animals, animals are now appropriate food, and yet lifeblood will be specially revered. God still requires accountability for just and discriminate shedding of blood and orderly relationships, as he has proved in the deluge, but now he relinquishes this responsibility to humankind. In return, God promises never to destroy all flesh again, and he will set the rainbow in the sky as a personal reminder. Like the covenant with Noah in 6:18, the postdiluvian covenant involves humankind fulfilling commands (9:1–7) and God remembering his covenant (9:8–17), specially termed “everlasting” (9:16).

The primeval commentary on humankind’s unabating sinful condition (e.g., 6:5; 8:21) proves true as Noah becomes drunk and naked and his son Ham (father of Canaan) shames him by failing to conceal his father’s negligence. Instead of multiplying, filling, and subduing the earth as God has intended, humankind collaborates to make a name for itself by building a sort of stairway to heaven within a special city (11:4). God foils such haughty plans by scattering the people across the earth and confusing their language. Expressed in an orderly chiastic structure, the story of the tower of Babel demonstrates that God condescends (11:5) to set things straight with humanity.

Patriarchs (Gen. 12–50)

Although the primeval history is foundational for understanding the rest of the Bible, more space in Genesis is devoted to the patriarchal figures Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph. In general, the Abrahamic narrative spans chapters 12–25, the story of Isaac serves as a transition to the Jacob cycle of chapters 25–37, and the Joseph narrative finishes the book of Genesis in chapters 37–50.

The transition from the primeval history to the patriarchs (11:27–32) reveals how Abraham, the father of Israel, moves from the east and settles in Harran as the family ventures to settle in Canaan. In Harran, Abraham receives the call of God’s redemptive plan, which reverberates through Scripture. God will bless him with land, make him a great nation, grant him special favor, and use him as a conduit of blessings to the world (12:1–3). In 11:30 is the indication that the barrenness of Abraham’s wife (Sarah) relates to the essence of God’s magnificent promises. How one becomes great in name and number, secures enemy territory, and is to bless all peoples without a descendant becomes the compelling question of the Abrahamic narrative. The interchange between Abraham’s faith in God and his attempts to contrive covenant fulfillment colors the entire narrative leading up to chapter 22. It is there that Abraham’s faith is ultimately put to the test as God asks him to sacrifice the promised son, Isaac. Abraham passes God’s faith test, and a ram is provided to take Isaac’s place. This everlasting covenant that was previously sealed by the sign of circumcision is climactically procured for future generations through Abraham’s exemplary obedience (22:16–18; cf. 15:1–21; 17:1–27).

The patriarchal stories that follow show that the Abrahamic promises are renewed with subsequent generations (see 26:3–4; 28:13–14) and survive various threats to fulfillment. The story of Isaac serves mainly as a bridge to the Jacob cycle, as he exists primarily as a passive character in relation to Abraham and Jacob.

Deception, struggle, rivalry, and favoritism characterize the Jacob narrative, as first exemplified in the jostling of twin boys in Rebekah’s womb (25:22). Jacob supplants his twin brother, Esau, for the firstborn’s blessing and birthright. He flees to Paddan Aram (northern Mesopotamia), marries two sisters, takes their maidservants as concubines, and has eleven children, followed by a falling-out with his father-in-law. Jacob’s struggle for God’s blessing that began with Esau comes to a head in his wrestling encounter with God at Peniel. Ultimately, Jacob emerges victorious and receives God’s blessing and a name change, “Israel” (“one who struggles with God”). Throughout the Jacob story, God demonstrates his faithfulness to the Abrahamic covenant and reiterates the promises to Jacob, most notably at Bethel (chaps. 28; 35). The interpersonal strife of Jacob’s life is thus enveloped within a message of reconciliation not just with Esau (chap. 33) but ultimately with God. The reader learns from the episodes in Jacob’s life that although God works through the lives of weak and failing people, his promises for Israel remain secure.

Although Jacob and his family are already living in Canaan, God intends for them to move to Egypt and grow into a powerful nation before fulfilling their conquest of the promised land (see 15:13–16). The story of Joseph explains how the family ends up in Egypt at the close of Genesis. Joseph is specially loved by his father, which elicits significant jealousy from his brothers, who sell him off to some nomads and fabricate the alibi that he has been killed by a wild beast. Joseph winds up in Pharaoh’s household and eventually becomes his top official. When famine strikes Canaan years later, Joseph’s brothers go to Egypt to purchase food from the royal court, and Joseph reveals his identity to them in an emotional reunion. Jacob’s entire family moves to Egypt to live for a time in prosperity under Joseph’s care. The Joseph story illustrates the mysterious relationship of human decision and divine sovereignty (50:20).

Liberation from Egypt (Exod. 1–18)

Genesis shows how Abraham develops into a large family. Exodus shows how this family becomes a nation—enslaved, freed, and then taught the ways of God. Although it appears that Exodus continues a riveting story of God’s chosen people, it is actually the identity and power of God that take center stage.

Many years have passed since Joseph’s family arrived in Egypt. The Hebrews’ good standing in Egypt has also diminished as their multiplication and fruitfulness during the intervening period—just as God had promised Abraham (Gen. 17:4–8)—became a national threat to the Egyptians. Abraham’s family will spend time in Egyptian slavery before being liberated with many possessions in hand (cf. Gen. 15:13–14).

In the book of Exodus the drama of suffering and salvation serves as the vehicle for God’s self-disclosure to a single man, Moses. Moses is an Israelite of destiny even from birth, as he providentially avoids infant death and rises to power and influence in Pharaoh’s household. Moses never loses his passion for his own people, and he kills an Egyptian who was beating a fellow Hebrew. Moses flees to obscurity in the desert, where he meets God and his call to lead his people out of Egypt and to the promised land (3:7–8; 6:8). Like the days of Noah’s salvation, God has remembered his covenant with the patriarchs and responded to the groans of his people in Egypt (2:24; 6:4–5; cf. Gen. 8:1). God reveals himself, and his personal name “Yahweh” (“I am”), to Moses in the great theophany of the burning bush at Mount Horeb (Sinai), the same place where later he will receive God’s law. Moses doubts his own ability to carry out the task of confronting Pharaoh and leading the exodus, but God foretells that many amazing signs and wonders not only will make the escape possible but also will ultimately reveal the mighty nature of God to the Hebrews, Egypt, and presumably the world (6:7; 7:5).

This promise of creating a nation of his people through deliverance is succinctly conveyed in the classic covenant formula that finds significance in the rest of the OT: “I will take you as my own people, and I will be your God” (6:7). Wielding great power over nature and at times even human decision, God “hardens” Pharaoh’s heart and sends ten plagues to demonstrate his favor for his own people and wrath against their enemy nation. The tenth plague on the firstborn of all in Egypt provides the context for the Passover as God spares the firstborn of Israel in response to the placement of sacrificial blood on the doorposts of their homes. Pharaoh persists in the attempt to overtake the Israelites in the desert, where the power of God climaxes in parting the Red Sea (or Sea of Reeds). The Israelites successfully pass through, but the Egyptian army drowns in pursuit. This is the great salvation event of the OT.

The song of praise for God’s deliverance (15:1–21) quickly turns to cries of groaning in the seventy days following the exodus as the people of the nation, grumbling about their circumstances in the desert, quickly demonstrate their fleeting trust in the one who has saved them (Exod. 15:22–18:27). When a shortage of water and food confronts the people, their faith in God’s care proves shallow, and they turn on Moses. Even though the special marks of God’s protection have been evident in the wilderness through the pillars of cloud and fire, the angel of God, the provision of manna and quail, water from the rock, and the leadership of Moses, the nation continually fails God’s tests of trust and obedience (16:4; cf. 17:2; 20:20). Yet God continues to endure with his people through the leadership of Moses.

Sinai (Exod. 19:1–Num. 10:10)

Most of the pentateuchal narrative takes place at Mount Sinai. It is there that Israel receives national legislation and prescriptions for the tabernacle, the priesthood, feasts and festivals, and other covenantal demands for living as God’s chosen people. The eleven-month stay at Sinai takes the biblical reader through the center of the Pentateuch, covering approximately the last half of Exodus, all of Leviticus, and the first third of Numbers, before the nation leaves this sacred site and sojourns in the wilderness. Several key sections of the Pentateuch fall within the Sinai story: the Decalogue (Exod. 20:1–17), the Book of the Covenant (Exod. 20:22–23:33), the tabernacle prescriptions (Exod. 25–31), the tabernacle construction (Exod. 35–40), the manual on ritual worship (Lev. 1–7), and the Holiness Code (Lev. 17–27).

The events and instruction at Sinai are central to the Israelite religious experience and reflect the third eternal covenant that God establishes in the Pentateuch—this time with Israel, whereby the Sabbath is the sign (Exod. 31:16; cf. Noahic/rainbow covenant [Gen. 9:16] and the Abrahamic/circumcision covenant [Gen. 17:7, 13, 19]). The offices of prophet and priest develop into clear view in this portion of the Pentateuch. Moses exemplifies the dual prophetic function of representing the people when speaking with God and, in turn, God when speaking to the people. The priesthood is bestowed upon Aaron and his descendants in Exodus and inaugurated within one of the few narrative sections of Leviticus (Lev. 8–10). The giving of the law, the ark, the tabernacle, the priesthood, and the Sabbath are all a part of God’s making himself “known” to Israel and the world, which is a constant theme in Exodus (see, e.g., 25:22; 29:43, 46; 31:13).

The Israelites’ stay at Sinai opens with one of the greatest theophanies of the Bible: God speaks aloud to the people (Exod. 19–20) and then is envisioned as a consuming fire (Exod. 24). After communicating the Ten Commandments (“ten words”) directly to the people (Exod. 34:28; Deut. 4:13; 10:4), Moses mediates the rest of the detailed obligations that will govern the future life of the nation. The covenant is ratified in ceremonial fashion (Exod. 24), and the Israelites vow to fulfill all that has been spoken. God expects Israel to be a holy nation (Exod. 19:6) with whom he may dwell, but Moses descends Sinai only to find that the Israelites have already violated the essence of the Decalogue by fashioning a golden calf to worship as that which delivered them from Egypt (Exod. 32). This places Israel’s future and calling in jeopardy, but Moses intercedes for his people, and God graciously promises to preserve the nation and abide with it in his mercy, even while punishing the guilty. This becomes prototypical of God’s relationship with his people in the future (Exod. 34:6–7).

Exodus ends with the consecration of the tabernacle and the descent of God’s presence there. With the tent of worship in order, the priesthood and its rituals can be officially established. Leviticus reflects divine instructions for how a sinful people may live safely in close proximity to God. Holy living involves dealing with sin and minimizing the need for atonement, purification, and restitution. The sacrificial and worship system established in Leviticus is based on a worldview of order, perfection, and purity, which should characterize a people who are commanded, “Be holy because I, the Lord your God, am holy’ (Lev. 19:2; cf. 11:44–45; 20:26). With these rules in place, the Israelites can make final preparations to depart Sinai and move forward on their journey. Numbers 1–10 spans a nineteen-day period of such activities as the Israelites begin to focus on dispossessing their enemies. These chapters reflect a census of fighting men, the priority of purity, the dedication of the tabernacle, and the observance of the Passover before commencing the quest to Canaan.

Wilderness Journey (Num. 10:11–36:13)

The rest of the book of Numbers covers the remainder of a forty-year stretch of great peaks and valleys in the faith and future of the nation. Chapters 11–25 recount the various events that show the exodus generation’s lack of trust in God. Chapters 26–36 reveal a more positive section whereby a new generation prepares for the conquest. With the third section of Numbers framed by episodes involving the inheritance rights of Zelophehad’s daughters (27:1–11; 36:1–13), it is clear that the story has turned to the future possession of the land.

After the departure from Sinai, the narrative consists of a number of Israelite complaints in the desert. The Israelites have grown tired of manna and ironically crave the food of Egypt, which they recall as free fish, fruits, and vegetables. Having forgotten the hardship of life in slavery, about which they had cried out to God, now the nation is crying out for a lifestyle of old. Moses becomes so overwhelmed with the complaints of the people that God provides seventy elders, who, to help shoulder the leadership burden, will receive the same prophetic spirit given to Moses.

In chapters 13–14 twelve spies are sent out from Kadesh Barnea to peruse Canaan, but the people’s lack of faith to procure the land from the mighty people there proves costly. This final example of distrust moves God to punish and purify the nation. The unbelieving generation will die in the wilderness during a forty-year period of wandering.

The discontent in the desert involves not only food and water but also leadership status. Moses’ own brother and sister resent his special relationship with God and challenge his exclusive authority. Later, Aaron’s special high priesthood is threatened as another Levitical family (Korah) vies for preeminence. Through a sequence of signs and wonders, God makes it clear that Moses and Aaron have exclusive roles in God’s economy. Due to the deaths related to Korah’s rebellion and the fruitless staffs that represent the tribes of Israel, the nation’s concern about sudden extinction in the presence of a holy God is appeased through the eternal covenant of priesthood granted to Aaron’s family (chap. 18). He and the Levites, at the potential expense of their own lives and as part of their priestly service, will be held accountable for keeping the tabernacle pure of encroachers.

Even after the people’s significant rebellion and punishment, God continues to prove his faithfulness to his word. Hope is restored for the nation as the Abrahamic promises of blessing are rehearsed from the mouth of Balaam, a Mesopotamian seer. The Israelites will indeed one day be numerous (23:10), enjoy the presence of God (23:21), be blessed and protected (24:9), and have a kingly leader (24:17). This wonderful mountaintop experience of hope for the exodus generation is tragically countered by an even greater event of apostasy in the subsequent scene. Reminiscent of the incident of the golden calf, when pagan revelry in the camp had foiled Moses’ interaction with God on Sinai, apostasy at the tabernacle undermines Balaam’s oracles of covenant fulfillment. Fornication with Moabite women not only joins the nation to a foreign god but also betrays God’s holiness at his place of dwelling. If not for the zeal of Aaron’s grandson Phinehas, who puts an end to the sin, the ensuing plague could have finished the nation. For his righteous action, Phinehas is awarded an eternal priesthood and ensures a future for the nation and Aaron’s priestly lineage.

In chapter 26 a second census of fighting men indicates that the old, unbelieving exodus generation has officially died off (except for Joshua and Caleb), and God is proceeding with a new people. God dispossesses the enemies of the new generation; reinstates the tribal boundaries of the land; reinstates rules concerning worship, service, and bloodshed; and places Joshua at the helm of leadership. Chapters 26–36 mention no deaths or rebellions as the nation optimistically ends its journey in Moab, just east of the promised land.

Moses’ Farewell (Deuteronomy)

Although one could reasonably move into the historical books at the end of Numbers, much would be lost in overstepping Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy presents Moses’ farewell speeches as his final words to a nation on the verge of Caanan. Moses’ speeches are best viewed as sermons motivating his people to embrace the Sinai covenant, love their God, and choose life over death and blessings over cursings (30:19). Moses reviews the desert experience since Mount Horeb/Sinai (chaps. 1–4) and recapitulates God’s expectations for lawful living in the land (chaps. 5–26). The covenant code is recorded on a scroll, is designated the “Book of the Law” (31:24–26), and is to be read and revered by the future king. Finally, Moses leads the nation in covenant renewal (chaps. 29–32) before the book finishes with an account of his death (chaps. 33–34), including tributes such as “since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face” (34:10).

Deuteronomy reflects that true covenant faithfulness is achieved from a right heart for God. If there were any previous doubts about the essence of covenant keeping, Moses eliminates such in Deuteronomy with the frequent use of emotive terms. Loving God involves committing to him alone and spurning idols and foreign gods. The Ten Commandments (chap. 5) are not a list of stale requirements; they reflect the great Shema with the words “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts” (6:5–6). God desires an unrivaled love from the nation, not cold and superficial religiosity.

Obedience by the Israelites will incur material and spiritual blessing, whereas disobedience ends in the loss of both. Although Moses strongly commends covenant obedience, and the nation participates in a covenant-renewal ceremony (chap. 27), it is clear that in the future the Israelites will fail to uphold their covenant obligations and will suffer the consequences (29:23; 30:1–4; 31:16–17). Yet Moses looks to a day when the command for circumcised hearts (10:16) will be fulfilled by the power of God himself (30:6). In the future a new king will arise from the nation (17:14–20) as well as a prophet like Moses (18:15–22). Deuteronomy thus underscores the extent of God’s own devotion to his patriarchal promises despite the sinful nature of his people.

For much of the middle and end of the twentieth century, Deuteronomy has received a significant amount of attention for its apparent resemblance in structure and content to ancient Hittite and Assyrian treaties. Scholars debate the extent of similarity, but it is possible that Deuteronomy reflects a suzerain-vassal treaty form between Israel and God much like the common format between nations in the ancient Near East. Although comparative investigation of this type can be profitable for interpretation, it is prudent to be conservative when outlining direct parallels, since Deuteronomy is not a legal document but rather a dramatic narrative of God’s redemptive interaction with the world.

A region generally identified with the landmass between ancient Syria and Egypt, including parts of the Sinai Peninsula, Palestine from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean, and southern Phoenicia (modern Lebanon). Although there is some discussion about the origin of the name “Canaan” and its meaning, the name apparently arises from the primary inhabitants of the region prior to Joshua’s incursion into the land, since it is primarily used in connection with the phrase “the land of,” indicating that the descendants of Canaan possess it. Because the identity of the land of Canaan was linked as much to its inhabitants as it was to any sort of fixed borders, the boundaries are identified in various ways throughout the biblical text. Such descriptions vary from a rather limited area of influence (as suggested by Num. 13:29) to a larger land spanning an area from the Euphrates to the Nile (Gen. 15:18; Exod. 23:23). Because of its strategic position as a buffer between Egypt and Mesopotamia and between Arabia and the sea, it served as a primary trading outpost and the location of numerous important historical events both prior to and after Israel’s appearance in the land.

In the Bible, the geographical reference “the land of Canaan” finds primary expression, not surprisingly, in Genesis through Judges. The promise to Abraham that his descendants would inherit the land of the Canaanites (Gen. 15:18–21) is the theological focal point of the uses of the term “Canaan” throughout these biblical books. Once that inheritance was achieved and Israel became a viable state, the term’s use seems to serve the double purpose of being both a geographical marker and a reminder of the nature of its former predominant inhabitants. The prophets drew upon the term to remind Israel of the land’s former status, both in its positive (Isa. 19:18) and negative (Isa. 23:11; Zeph. 2:5) connotations. The term is transliterated twice in the NT in the recounting of OT history (Acts 7:11; 13:19). One further connection between Canaan and the perspectives communicated concerning it in the OT is the apparent association of the land with corrupt trade practices. That is, while some believe that the word “Canaan” always meant “merchant” or some similar word, its use in Scripture suggests that the tradesmen of Canaan were of such disrepute in the recollection of ancient Israel that the term became a synonym for “unjust trader” (Job 41:6; Ezek. 16:29; 17:4; Zeph. 1:11; Zech. 14:21).

History

The proximity of Canaan to Egypt meant that from its earliest periods it found itself beholden to the pharaohs of Egypt. The Egyptian Execration texts from the Old Kingdom era tell of Egypt’s influence over Canaan in the early second millennium. After the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt, the pharaohs of the New Kingdom asserted their control over the land. Most famous among these records is Thutmose III’s account of his defeat of Megiddo through the implementation of both cunning and skill. This same pharaoh would establish a system of dividing Canaan and its inhabitants for taxation and administration that would be so successful that Solomon would reimplement the same system during his reign (1 Kings 4:7–19). Even in the weaker days of Egypt following the New Kingdom, pharaohs such as Necho and Shishak and their successors the Ptolemies would often seek to revisit the days of glory in campaigns into Canaan.

In addition to Egypt, other outside forces found their way into Canaan and exerted influence on its development. The earliest settlers seem to have come from Mesopotamia, and Semitic influence is witnessed as early as 3000 BC. In the period between Egypt’s control of Canaan during the Old Kingdom and its later reassertion after expelling the Hyksos, Canaan witnessed a massive influx of Amorites from the north and also incursions by the Hittites and the Hurrians. As Egypt’s power waned toward the end of the New Kingdom, the Philistines came in from the sea and the Israelites from across the Jordan. All these societies were absorbed into the Canaanite culture or were themselves modified by the Canaanites. Israelite success in removing mention of the Canaanites as an identifiable entity would not be firmly established until late in the eighth century under Hezekiah.

The story of Israel’s predominance in the area of Canaan begins, of course, with the infiltration into the land under Joshua and persists until the fall of the temple in AD 70 at the hands of the Romans. During that period, Canaan endured as a place of importance as a staging ground for controlling both Mesopotamia and Egypt and therefore witnessed campaigns by most of the great leaders of Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome. Of course, with each campaign came alterations in both the political and the cultural landscape of the land and reinforcement of the view that the area was the center of the world. Indeed, it is in Canaan, in the Jezreel Valley, that Scripture turns its focus for the final battle between God and the forces of Satan at Armageddon.

Geography and Climate

Geography. Though small in scope, the region of Canaan encompassed a surprisingly wide variety of environments. Within its topography one could find perilous deserts, snow-capped mountains, thick forests, lush plains, coastal beaches, rugged hills, deep valleys, and separate water sources full of both life and minerals. The Shephelah, or coastal plain, lacks any natural harbor areas that would have led to the early exploitation of the Mediterranean in the south that is so well known in the northern areas of Phoenicia. It does, however, provide wide-open, fertile areas fed by the rain runoff from the central hill country, which allowed it to be a useful source of farming and civilization from a very early period.

The central hill country is essentially a ridge that runs parallel to the coast and undulates in elevation from the mountainous north to the rugged but less elevated regions of the south. This ridge served as a natural barrier against travel from west to east, so it is not surprising that important military towns such as Hazor cropped up in places where valleys in this ridge allowed travelers to move from the coast to the inland regions as necessary to reach Mesopotamia from Egypt. One such valley of significance through the history of the land of Canaan is the Esdraelon or Jezreel Valley. It provides a wide swath of land that moves from Akko in the west (  just north of the Carmel Range) to the Sea of Galilee in the east, with access points in the north and south. Within this valley were settlements such as Megiddo and Hazor in earlier times, and Nazareth and Tiberias in later times.

Along the eastern edge of the central hill country is the Jordan Rift Valley. The elevation drops dramatically from cities in the hill country, such as Jerusalem at about 2,500 feet above sea level, to cities in the valley, such as Jericho at about 1,000 feet below sea level, within the span of about fifteen miles. The valley itself is part of a much larger rift that starts in southeast Turkey and continues all the way to Mozambique in Africa. Waters from snowy Mount Hermon and a couple of natural springs feed into the Sea of Galilee and then flow into the Jordan River, which snakes its way down into the Dead Sea. The lands around the Jordan River were once very fertile in the north and probably included abundant forests and wildlife. Toward the south of the Jordan River, one approaches the wilderness surrounding the Dead Sea, a region well known for its mineral contents.

The southernmost section of Canaan, known as the Negev, is an unforgiving region with mountains, deserts, and interspersed oases throughout. It opens up into the Arabian Desert to the east and the Sinai Peninsula to the southwest. Its primary cities of importance in biblical times were Beersheba and Raphia. As the gateway from Egypt to Canaan, the Negev played a significant role in biblical history.

Climate. The climate of Canaan played a significant role in its religion and history. It is generally recognized that climate change played a rather momentous role in population movements by nomads, in destabilization of powerful governments, and in the capability, or lack thereof, of nations to participate in the trade that was at the heart of Canaan’s growth, spread of influence, and success. Within Canaan itself, because the natural water sources were on the wrong side of the central hill country, most of its water came from rainfall. It is not surprising, therefore, that many of the discussions that take place in both Canaanite and Israelite religious expressions concerning the power of their gods found utterance in terms of a god’s ability to grant rain (see 1 Kings 17–18). The rainy season began in October and typically continued through April. The other months of the year witnessed little or no rainfall. Although in a temperate zone within which one might expect high temperatures, the coastal plains were kept relatively cool by winds coming in off the sea. The coastal mountain areas, such as Carmel, were the most likely to receive rainfall, so when they were without it, all the land suffered (Amos 1:2).

Culture and Politics

The history of Canaan begins with an archaeological record that travels back into the first signs of human settlement anywhere in the world. Such early attestation exists within the confines of Palestine itself at Jericho and Megiddo, both sites of natural springs that would have attracted settlers. The pre-Israelite civilizations of Canaan are well attested during the Bronze Age (c. 3300–1200 BC). Their culture as represented in the art and architecture of the land demonstrates a developed people who were metropolitan in taste and gifted in style. Furthermore, because of the placement of the land between Egypt and Mesopotamia and the numerous incursions by outside forces throughout its history, Canaan reveals a people with a high tolerance for change and a willingness to absorb other viewpoints into their perspectives and practice. Archaeological finds reveal a mixture of Egyptian, Sumerian, Amorite, Hittite, and Akkadian influences in their literature, material wealth, and religion.

Though unified in terms of a worldview and religious expression, the people of Canaan were politically committed to independent expressions of their power and influence. The greater cities seem to have served as hubs around which smaller communities and cities organized and remained separate from each other. The Amarna letters of the fourteenth century BC reveal leaders who did not trust each other and who sought the Egyptian pharaoh’s favor as they vied for position and strength. As one would expect, different city-states held more sway in different eras. Ebla flourished in the period of 2500–2000 BC and then again around 1800 BC. Likewise, Byblos flourished in the period of 2500–1300 BC. It is in the Middle Bronze Age (2200–1550 BC) that cities more directly involved with the biblical narrative started to flourish. For instance, Jerusalem, Jericho, Hazor, and Megiddo reached their height of power and influence around 1700–1500 BC, and each of these is mentioned in various texts of the time that give us some insight into Canaan’s role in the greater political history. It is Ugarit/Ras Shamra, which flourished in 1400–1200 BC, however, that has granted us the greatest amount of textual knowledge and information about the religion and literature of Canaan.

Religion

The excavations of Ras Shamra (beginning in 1929), and the accompanying discovery of its archive of clay tablets, granted modern scholars a perspective into Canaanite religion that had been hinted at in the biblical text but previously had remained somewhat of a mystery. The tablets themselves date between 1400 and 1200 BC. They reveal a highly developed religion with identifiable, well-defined deities. These deities represent religious practice and thought in the region that go back to at least 2000 BC, and the Mesopotamian religions they are dependent on go back well beyond that.

Canaanite deities. The primary gods identified in the text include El, Baal, Asherah (at Ugarit, Athirat), Anath (at Ugarit, Anat), and Ashtoreth (at Ugarit, Astarte). El was the supreme Canaanite deity, though in popular use the people of Canaan seem to have been more interested in Baal.

The relationship between the Canaanite use of the name “El” for their supreme god and Israel’s use of the same in reference to its own God (Gen. 33:20; Job 8:3; Pss. 18:31, 33, 48; 68:21) is something that biblical authors used at various points in their writings (Ps. 81:9–10; Nah. 1:2), never in the sense of associating the two as one and the same, but solely for the purpose of distinguishing their God, Yahweh, from any associations with the descriptions and nature of the Canaanite El (Exod. 34:14). Practically speaking, the coincidence probably resulted from the fact that the Hebrew word ’el had a dual intent in its common usage, similar to the way a modern English speaker will sometimes use “god” as either a common or a proper noun.

Like “El,” the term “Baal” had a dual function in its use. Because the word means “master” or “lord,” the people of Canaan could apply “Baal” to either the singular deity of the greater pantheon or to individual gods of a more local variety. Local manifestations included Baal-Peor, Baal-Hermon, Baal-Zebul, and Baal-Meon. The OT acknowledges the multiplicity of Baals in some places (Judg. 2:11; 3:7; 1 Sam. 7:4) but also seems to allude to a singular ultimate Baal (1 Kings 18; 2 Kings 21:3), called “Baal-Shamen” or “Baal-Hadad” elsewhere. The fact that Baal was recognized in the Ugaritic texts as the god of the thunderbolt adds an interesting insight to the struggle on Mount Carmel, in which one would suppose that had he been real, the one thing he should have been able to do was bring fire down from the sky; but he could not (1 Kings 18). Recognition that the term “Baal” could refer to a number of gods or to one ultimate god may also help one understand the syncretism that took place in Israel between Yahweh and Baal addressed by the prophet Hosea (Hos. 2:16). To the common person who recognized the multiplicity of the term “Baal” and yet also heard of his supremacy, the assignment of the name to Yahweh and the resulting combining that would occur would seem a natural progression, though still sinful in the eyes of God.

The synthesis of Baal and Yahweh is demonstrated in Scripture as being a temptation from national Israel’s earliest encounters with Baalism. The events at Peor (Num. 25) demonstrate a propensity toward this type of activity, but the confusion between Yahweh and Baal became strongest once Israel entered into the land. Gideon had a second name, “Jerub-Baal” (Judg. 6:32), and the people themselves worshiped Baal-Berith (“Baal of the covenant”) as an indication that they believed their covenant to be with Baal, not Yahweh. Saul, Jonathan, and David all had sons named for Baal: Esh-Baal, Merib-Baal, and Beeliada respectively. Jeroboam I made the connection even more explicit in his setting of shrines at Dan and Bethel with the golden calves that were common icons for Baal in the era, but that he apparently viewed as being appropriate representations of Yahweh. By the time of the prophets, such confusion evidently was entrenched into the very heart of both Israel and Judah; however, Yahweh was able to utilize the false assessments of his character to clarify his true character and ultimately bring Israel back to him.

Asherah was the wife of El in Ugaritic mythology, but apparently because of Baal’s accessibility and ubiquitous nature, she was ultimately given to Baal as a consort among Canaanites in the south. Apparently, her worship was also linked to trees, and the mentioning of “Asherah poles” (Exod. 34:13; Deut. 7:5; Judg. 6:25) in Scripture suggests that such a linkage had been stylized into representative trees at sacred locations. Asherah had prophets (1 Kings 18:19) and specific instruments of worship in Israel (2 Kings 23:4) and became so ensconced in practice and thought that her form often was replicated in the form of items known as Asherim. The previously mentioned synthesis between Baal and Yahweh seems also to have found expression regarding Asherah within Israel. At Kuntillet Ajrud a famous graffito reads “Yahweh of Samaria and his Asherah.” This example of the people granting a consort to Yahweh is yet another instance where the biblical revelation is so distinct among surrounding cultures because of the absence of such imagery regarding God.

Anath was understood as both Baal’s sister and his lover in Canaanite mythology. Given her apparent replacement in the thought of the southern Canaanite tribes by Asherah, it is not surprising that the only place we find Anath mentioned is in appellations, such as “Beth Anath” (lit., “the house of Anath” [Josh. 19:38; Judg. 1:33]). She also seems to have played a role in the tone of Baal worship in that she functioned as a goddess of both warfare and sexuality. Her portrayal in Ugaritic texts and in inscriptions from Egypt suggests a lasciviousness that has become the defining characteristic of Canaanite worship and also seems to be at the center of the methodology implemented by Hosea to reach Israel, which had become ensnarled in a similar outlook regarding Yahweh (Hos. 1–3).

The descriptions of Ashtoreth at Ugarit portray her in much the same light as Anath. Some cultures such as Egypt and later Syria seem to have even melded them together into one being. Whether this combining was a part of the Israelite conceptions is difficult to determine, although such a combination may explain why only Ashtoreth is mentioned in the biblical text as an individual deity and not Anath. In any case, Ashtoreth apparently was a primary figure in the corruption of worship during the reign of Solomon (1 Kings 11:5, 33; 2 Kings 23:13).

Summary. By the time the Israelites entered the land, they found a religion that was already well established and accustomed to absorbing various viewpoints into its expression and practice. Additionally, they found a religion that catered to the more base and animalistic tendencies to which all humanity is drawn since the fall. The commonality of such practices among almost all ancient cultures serves as a potent reminder of the distinctiveness and power of the biblical worldview. The narratives, poems, and prophetic oracles of the OT demonstrate a knowledge of these beliefs and an acknowledgment of their place in the lives of everyday Israelites, but they never demonstrate a submission to them in their portrayal of the true God and his expectations of his people.

The Israelite conquest of the Promised Land is narrated in Numbers through 2 Samuel and includes key figures such as Moses, Joshua, Samuel, Saul, and David, although the main events of the conquest are described in Joshua and Judges. There is considerable scholarly debate about the very complicated details of the conquest. Much of this debate centers on archaeology and the dating of sites and artifacts that have been excavated in the last century. Further complicating things is the fact that many of the events recorded in the Bible are not recorded anywhere else, making verification of events challenging.

Dating the conquest (using the destruction of Jericho as a fixed point) is notoriously difficult. Scholars who accept the biblical account as historically reliable tend to date the conquest of Jericho in the early twelfth century BC. This dating is based on the identification of the pharaoh in the exodus story as one of the Ramesses (who reigned in the Nineteenth or Twentieth Egyptian Dynasty, or roughly the thirteenth to tenth centuries BC). Some archaeologists, however, have argued that during this time Jericho was no more than a small, unwalled village with little or no military significance, thus making the story of Jericho’s destruction in the Bible impossible. Thus, other scholars have suggested a fifteenth- or sixteenth-century date for the conquest (when Jericho was known to be fortified). This solution, however, makes identification of the exodus pharaoh difficult and requires spreading out the events in Judges over four centuries instead of two. Both sides have different theories of how to accommodate the statement in 1 Kings 6:1 that it was 480 years after the exodus that Solomon began to build the temple. This controversy involving biblical scholars, historians, and archaeologists promises to continue for many years to come.

The background for the Canaanite conquest is found in the Pentateuch narratives that describe the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt and their trek toward Palestine. Indeed, the conquest is anticipated already in God’s promise to Abraham that his descendants will become a mighty nation (Gen. 12:1–3; see also 15:16). The story describes God’s initial command to quickly conquer the land after meeting them on Mount Sinai (Num. 13), and the people’s rebellion caused by fear of the Canaanites, who are described as “giants in the land” (NLT). As a result, the Israelites are forced to wander in the Sinai wilderness until the entire generation dies (with the exception of Joshua and Caleb).

As narrated in the Bible, the conquest begins with defeat of the Midianites on the eastern side of the Jordan River under the leadership of Moses (Num. 31–32). Then, after Moses’ death, the Israelites cross the Jordan River to attack Jericho (Josh. 1–7). After the miraculous destruction of Jericho, the Israelites move to Ai and encounter initial defeat due to one man’s sin (Josh. 8). Later, after being tricked by the Gibeonites, the Israelites engage in battle with the five kings of the Amorites (Josh. 9–10). Finally, Josh. 11 describes the conquest of the northern part of the land and especially the military and strategically important city of Hazor.

The book of Judges relates fewer, more concentrated battles against different enemies, sometimes in offensive attacks and other times as defensive battles to preserve land control. The final stage of the conquest under David’s kingship is described in 2 Sam. 1–8. After Saul’s death, a short and violent confrontation takes place between Israelite forces still loyal to Saul’s family and those loyal to David. Political power is consolidated with a few key assassinations, rather than through full-fledged war, orchestrated by David’s men (there is some debate about how involved David was in these events). As a result, David, with the full support of the army (both the forces previously loyal to Saul and his own), takes the city of Jerusalem and then finally conquers the areas of the Philistines, the Ammonites, and the Moabites (areas that Saul had been unable to subdue). Thus, large-scale fighting for territory ends during David’s reign.

The tribal boundaries are described in Josh. 14–22. How closely these boundaries describe land actually conquered and how much of it was a territorial stake that required further warfare in order to be obtained are subject to intense debate. By the time of David, however, the allotment (described in Joshua) fairly closely reflects the largest reaches of the United Kingdom under David (described in 2 Samuel).

The descriptions of the Israelites’ total destruction of their enemies, often including women, children, and livestock, have created theological difficulties for interpreters trying to reconcile the seeming incongruity of God’s love for humankind, especially the innocent, and his commands to completely destroy these cultures. Some scholars have sought to justify these actions by describing the horrific religious practices of these people (such as child sacrifice and ritual sexual perversions), but there are questions about how widespread these practices actually were and doubt about how they would justify a response involving the death of innocents. Currently, there is no strong scholarly consensus on how to resolve this difficult theological issue.

The Bible is full of teeming creatures and swarming things. These creatures, insects, often play significant roles in the stories and the events described in them. From the first chapter of the Bible to the very last book, these flying, creeping, hopping, and crawling things are prominent.

Terms for Insects

Insects are described in the Bible with both general and specific terms. In the OT, there are three general terms for insects and twenty terms used to refer to specific types of insects. In the NT, two different types of insects are referenced: gnats and locusts.

The two most common general terms for insects are variously translated. Terms and phrases used to describe them include “living creatures” (Gen. 1:20), “creatures that move along the ground” (Gen. 1:24–26; 6:7, 20; 7:8, 14, 23; 8:17, 19; Lev. 5:2; Ezek. 38:20; Hos. 2:18), that which “moves” (Gen. 9:3), “swarming things” (Lev. 11:10), “flying insects” (Lev. 11:20–21, 23; Deut. 14:19), “creatures” (Lev. 11:43), “crawling things” (Lev. 22:5; Ezek. 8:10), “reptiles” (1 Kings 4:33), “teeming creatures” (Ps. 104:25), “small creatures” (Ps. 148:10), and “sea creatures” (Hab. 1:14). The other general term for insects is used with reference to swarms of insects, typically flies (Exod. 8:21–22, 24, 29; Pss. 78:45; 105:31). Specific insects named in Scripture are listed below.

Ants. Ants are used in Proverbs as an example of and encouragement toward wisdom. In 6:6 ants serve as an example for sluggards to reform their slothful ways. Also, in 30:25 ants serve as an example of creatures that, despite their diminutive size, are wise enough to make advance preparations for the long winter.

Bees. Bees are used both literally and figuratively in Scripture. Judges 14:8 refers to honeybees, the product of which becomes the object of Samson’s riddle. The other three uses of bees in the OT are figurative of swarms of enemies against God’s people (Deut. 1:44; Ps. 118:12; Isa. 7:18).

Fleas. Fleas are referenced in the OT only by David to indicate his insignificance in comparison with King Saul (1 Sam. 24:14; 26:20). The irony of the comparison becomes clear with David’s later ascendancy.

Flies. The plague of flies follows that of gnats on Egypt (Exod. 8:20–31). Although the gnats are never said to have left Egypt, the flies are removed upon Moses’ prayer. In Eccles. 10:1 the stench of dead flies is compared to the impact that folly can have on the wise. In Isa. 7:18 flies represent Egypt being summoned by God as his avenging agents on Judah’s sin. In addition, one of the gods in Ekron was named “Baal-Zebub,” which means “lord of the flies” (2 Kings 1:2–3, 6, 16). The reference to Satan in the NT using a similar name is likely an adaptation of the OT god of Ekron (Matt. 10:25; 12:24, 27; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15, 18–19).

Gnats. Gnats are distinguished from flies in the OT, though the distinction is not always apparent. Gnats are employed by God in the third plague on Egypt (Exod. 8:16–19), while flies form the means of punishment in the fourth plague. The two are listed together in Ps. 105:31 and appear parallel, though the former may be a reference to a swarm. Gnats were also used by Jesus to illustrate the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and the scribes (Matt. 23:24).

Hornets. The Bible uses hornets in Scripture as an agent of God’s destruction. The term occurs three times in the OT. In each occurrence these stinging insects refer to God’s expulsion of the Canaanites from the land that God promised to his people. The first two times, Exod. 23:28 and Deut. 7:20, hornets are used in reference to a promise of what God will do; the third time, Josh. 24:12, they illustrate what God did.

Locusts. Of particular interest is the use of locusts in the Bible. The term or a similar nomenclature occurs close to fifty times in the NIV. Locusts demonstrate a number of characteristics in Scripture. First, they are under God’s control (Exod. 10:13–19). As such, they have no king (Prov. 30:27). They serve God’s purposes. Second, locusts often occur in very large numbers or swarms (Judg. 6:5; Jer. 46:23; Nah. 3:15). At times, their numbers can be so large as to cause darkness in the land (Exod. 10:15). Third, in large numbers these insects have been known to ravage homes, devour the land, devastate fields, and debark trees (Exod. 10:12–15; Deut. 28:38; 1 Kings 8:37; 2 Chron. 7:13; Pss. 78:46; 105:34; Isa. 33:4; Joel 1:4–7). Due to their fierceness, they were compared to horses (Rev. 9:7). Fourth, locusts hide at night (Nah. 3:17). Finally, certain types of locusts were used as food.

Moths. Moths are referred to seven times in the OT and four times in the NT. Job uses moths to illustrate the fragility of the unrighteous before God (4:19) and the impermanence of their labors (27:18). The other references to moths in Scripture present them as the consumers of the wealth (garments) and pride of humankind as a means of God’s judgment (Job 13:28; Ps. 39:11; Isa. 50:9; 51:8; Hos. 5:12; Matt. 6:19–20; Luke 12:33; James 5:2).

Functions of Insects in Scripture

As agents in God’s judgment. Insects serve a variety of functions in Scripture. Most notably, insects serve as agents of judgment from God. The OT indicates how insects were used as judgment on both Israel and their enemies.

Moses warned of God’s judgment for Israel’s violation of the covenant. He advised Israel that as a consequence of their sin, they would expend much labor in the field but harvest little, because the locusts would consume them (Deut. 28:38).

Solomon, in his prayer of dedication at the temple, beseeched God regarding judgment that he might send in the form of grasshoppers to besiege the land. He asked that when the people of God repent and pray, God would hear and forgive (2 Chron. 6:26–30). God similarly responded by promising that when he “command[s] locusts to devour the land” as judgment for sin, and his people humble themselves and pray, he will heal and forgive (2 Chron. 7:13–14; cf. 1 Kings 8:37).

The psalmist reminded Israel of God’s wonderful works in their past, one of which was his use of insects as a means of his judgment (Ps. 78:45–46; cf. 105:34).

Joel 1:4 and 2:25 describe God’s judgment on Israel for their unfaithfulness in successive waves of intensity (cf. Deut. 28:38, 42; 2 Chron. 6:28; Amos 4:9–10; 7:1–3). The devastation led to crop failure, famine, destruction of vines and fig trees, and great mourning. The severity of the judgment is described as being unlike anything anyone in the community had ever experienced (Joel 1:2–3).

Locusts are the subject of one of the visions of the prophet Amos. In the vision, God showed him the destructive power of these insects as a means of judgment. Upon seeing the vision, the prophet interceded for the people, and God relented (Amos 7:1–3).

Insects were also used as judgments on Israel’s enemies. In the plagues on Egypt, insects were the agents of the third, fourth, and eighth plagues. The third plague (Exod. 8:16–19) was gnats. Interestingly, this was the first of Moses’ signs that the magicians of Pharaoh could not reproduce. Their response to the Egyptian king was that this must be the “finger of God.” There is no record of the gnats ever leaving Egypt, unlike the other plagues.

The fourth plague was flies (Exod. 8:20–32). Here the Bible specifically indicates a distinction between the land of Goshen, where the Israelites dwelled, and the rest of the land of Egypt. The flies covered all of Egypt except Goshen. This plague led to Pharaoh’s first offer of compromise. Once Moses prayed and the flies left Egypt, Pharaoh hardened his heart.

The eighth plague was in the form of locusts (Exod. 10:1–20). In response to this plague, Pharaoh’s own officials complained to him, beseeching him to let Israel leave their country lest it be entirely destroyed. The threat of this plague led to Pharaoh’s second offer of compromise. Once the locusts began to devastate the land of Egypt, Pharaoh confessed his sin before God, but as soon as the locusts were removed, his heart again became hardened. Thus, three of the ten plagues on Egypt were in the form of insects.

At the end of a series of “woe” passages, the prophet Isaiah proclaimed God’s judgment against the enemies of his people because of their oppression. In the end, those who plundered will themselves be plundered, as if by a “swarm of locusts” (Isa. 33:1–4; cf. Jer. 51:14, 27).

Insects were also used as judgment on people who dwelled in the land of Israel prior to Israel’s occupation. Both before and after the event took place, the Bible describes how God sent hornets to help drive out the occupants of the land of Canaan in preparation for Israel’s arrival. This is described as part of God’s judgment on these nations for their sins against him (Exod. 23:28; Deut. 7:20; Josh. 24:12).

As food. Insects also are mentioned in Scripture as food. Certain types of locusts are listed as clean and eligible for consumption. The NT describes the diet of John the Baptist, which consisted of locusts and wild honey—a diet entirely dependent on insects (Matt. 3:4; Mark 1:6). The OT also notes Samson enjoying the labor of bees as food (Judg. 14:8–9).

Used figuratively. Most often, insects are used figuratively in Scripture. They are used in the proverbs of Scripture to illustrate wisdom. The sages wrote about ants (Prov. 6:6; 30:25), locusts (Prov. 30:27), and even dead flies (Eccles. 10:1) both to extol wisdom and to encourage its development in humankind.

Another figurative use of insects is in the riddle about bees and honey posed by Samson to the Philistines (Judg. 14:12–18). As noted above, Samson ate honey (Judg. 14:8–9; cf. 1 Sam. 14:25–29, 43). Also, Scripture describes the promised land as a place of “milk and honey.”

Insects also are used to symbolize pursuing enemies (Deut. 1:44; Ps. 118:12; Isa. 7:18), innumerable forces (Judg. 6:5; 7:12; Ps. 105:34; Jer. 46:23; Joel 2:25), insignificance (Num. 13:33; 1 Sam. 24:14; 26:20; Job 4:19; 27:18; Ps. 109:23; Eccles. 12:5; Isa. 40:22), vulnerability (Job 4:19), God’s incomparable nature (Job 39:20), the brevity of life (Ps. 109:23), wisdom and organization (Prov. 30:27), and an invading army (Isa. 7:18; Jer. 51:14, 27), and they are employed in a taunt against Israel’s enemies (Nah. 3:15–17), a lesson on hypocrisy (Matt. 23:24), and an image of eschatological judgment (Rev. 9:4–11).

Scriptural Truths about Insects

1. Insects are part of God’s creation. In view of all the uses of insects in Scripture, several key truths emerge. First, insects are a part of the totality of God’s creation. The very first chapter of the Bible uses one of the general terms for insects as part of God’s creative activity on the sixth day of creation (Gen. 1:24). After God reviewed the creation on that day, his assessment of it, including the insects, was that it was “good” (1:25).

2. Insects are under God’s control. A second scriptural truth related to insects in the Bible is that they are under God’s control. In Deut. 7:20 God promised to send hornets ahead of the children of Israel to prepare the promised land for their arrival. Also, in Joel 2:25, when God promised to repair the damage to the land caused by the locusts, he described them as “my great army that I sent.” Thus, the picture emerges that what God has created, he alone reserves the authority to control.

3. Insects are cared for by God. A final truth regarding insects in Scripture is that God takes care of them. Just as Jesus explained God’s care for the birds of the air (Matt. 7:26), the psalmist explained that all of God’s creation, specifically insects, “look to you to give them their food at the proper time” (Ps. 104:25–27). The conclusion of the psalmist is appropriate for all of God’s creation: “When you hide your face, they are terrified; when you take away their breath, they die and return to the dust. When you send your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the ground” (104:29–30). Thus, in the end, God creates, God controls, and God cares—a lesson that all of God’s creation shares.

The Hebrew word ’erets occurs 2,505 times in the OT and is most frequently translated “country” or “land.” “Earth” renders the Greek word gē in the NT. Not surprisingly, ’erets appears 311 times in Genesis alone, the book that initiates Israel’s landed covenant (Gen. 15:18). The primary uses of ’erets are cosmological (e.g., the earth) and geographical (e.g., the land of Israel). Other uses of ’erets include physical (e.g., the ground on which one stands) and political (e.g., governed countries) designations. Less frequently, “earth” translates the Hebrew word ’adamah (“country, ground, land, soil”).

Heaven and Earth

Israel shared the cosmology of its ancient Near Eastern neighbors. This worldview understood the earth as a “disk” upon the primeval waters (Job 38:13; Isa. 40:22), with the earth having four rims or “corners” (Ps. 135:7; Isa. 11:12). These rims were sealed at the horizon to prevent the influx of cosmic waters. God speaks to Job about the dawn grasping the edges of the earth and shaking the evil people out of it (Job 38:12–13). Similarly, the Akkadian text Hymn to the Sun-God states, “You [Shamash] are holding the ends of the earth suspended from the midst of heaven” (I:22). The earth’s boundaries were set against chaos (Ps. 104:7–9; Isa. 40:12). In this way, the Creator and the Savior cannot be separated because, taken together, God works against chaos in the mission of redemption (Ps. 74:12–17; Isa. 51:9–11). The phrase “heavens and earth” is a merism (two extremes representing the whole) for the entire universe (Gen. 1:1; Ps. 102:25). Over the earth arched a firm “vault” (Gen. 1:6). Heaven’s vault rested on the earth’s “pillars,” the mountains (Deut. 32:22; 1 Sam. 2:8). Below the heavens is the sea, part of the earth’s flat surface.

There was no term for “world” in the OT. The perception of world was basically bipartite (heaven and earth), though some tripartite expressions also occur (e.g., heaven, earth, sea [Exod. 20:11; Rev. 5:3, 13]). Though rare, some uses of ’erets may refer to the “underworld” or Sheol (Exod. 15:12; Jer. 17:13; Jon. 2:6). The earth can be regarded as the realm of the dead (Matt. 12:40; Eph. 4:9). However, the OT is less concerned with the organic structure of the earth than with what fills the earth: inhabitants (Ps. 33:14; Isa. 24:1), people groups (Gen. 18:18; Deut. 28:10), and kingdoms (Deut. 28:25; 2 Kings 19:15). The term ’erets can be used symbolically to indicate its inhabitants (Gen. 6:11). However, unlike its neighbors, Israel acknowledged no divine “Mother Earth,” given the cultural associations with female consorts.

The Theology of Land

In biblical faith, the concept of land combines geography with theology. The modern person values land more as a place to build than for its productive capacities. But from the outset, human beings and the “earth” (’erets) functioned in a symbiotic relationship with the Creator (Gen. 1:28). God even gave the land agency to “bring forth living creatures” (Gen. 1:24). The “ground” (’adamah) also provided the raw substance to make the human being (’adam [Gen. 2:7]). In turn, the human being was charged with developing and protecting the land (Gen. 2:5, 15). Showing divine care, the Noahic covenant was “between [God] and the earth” (Gen. 9:13). Thus, land was no mere onlooker; human rebellion had cosmic effects (Gen. 6:7, 17). The land could be cursed and suffer (Gen. 3:17; cf. 4:11).

Israel’s promised land was built on the sanctuary prototype of Eden (Gen. 13:10; Deut. 6:3; 31:20); both were defined by divine blessing, fertility, legal instruction, secure boundaries, and were orienting points for the world. Canaan was Israel’s new paradise, “flowing with milk and honey” (Exod. 3:8; Num. 13:27). Conversely, the lack of fertile land was tantamount to insecurity and judgment. As Eden illustrated for Israel, any rupture of relationship with God brought alienation between humans, God, and the land; this could ultimately bring exile, as an ethically nauseated land “vomits” people out (Lev. 18:25, 28; 20:22; see also Deut. 4; 30).

For Israel, land involved both God’s covenant promise (Gen. 15:18–21; 35:9–12) and the nation’s faithful obedience (Gen. 17:1; Exod. 19:5; 1 Kings 2:1–4). Conditionality and unconditionality coexisted in Israel’s relationship of “sonship” with Yahweh (Exod. 4:22; Hos. 11:1). Yahweh was the earth’s Lord (Ps. 97:5), Judge (Gen. 18:25), and King (Ps. 47:2, 7). Both owner and giver, he was the supreme landlord, who gifted the land to Israel (Exod. 19:5; Lev. 25:23; Josh. 22:19; Ps. 24:1). The land was God’s “inheritance” to give (1 Sam. 26:19; 2 Sam. 14:16; Ps. 79:1; Jer. 2:7). The Levites, however, did not receive an allotment of land as did the other tribes, since God was their “portion” (Num. 18:20; Ps. 73:26). Israel’s obedience was necessary both to enter and to occupy the land (Deut. 8:1–3; 11:8–9; 21:1; 27:1–3). Ironically, the earth swallowed rebellious Israelites when they accused Moses of bringing them “up out of a land flowing with milk and honey” (Num. 16:13). As the conquest shows, however, no tribe was completely obedient, taking its full “inheritance” (Josh. 13:1).

Land possession had serious ethical and religious ramifications (Deut. 26:1–11). Israel was not chosen to receive a special land; rather, land was the medium of Israel’s relationship with God. Land functioned as a spiritual barometer (Ps. 78:56–64; Lam. 1:3–5). The heavens and earth stood as covenant witnesses (Deut. 4:26). Blood, in particular, could physically pollute the land (Num. 35:30–34). National sin could culminate in expulsion (Lev. 26:32–39), and eventually the land was lost (Jer. 25:1–11). For this reason, Israel’s exiles prompted a profound theological crisis.

Inheritance

The notion of inheritance connected Israel’s religious worship with practical stewardship. Land was not owned; it was passed down through patrimonial succession. God entrusted each family with an inheritance that was to be safeguarded (Lev. 25:23–28; Mic. 2:1–2). This highlights the serious crime when Naboth’s vineyard was forcibly stolen (1 Kings 21). It was Israel’s filial sonship with Yahweh and Israel’s land tenure that formed Yahweh’s solidarity with the nation. The law helped limit Israel’s attachment to mere real estate: Yahweh was to be Israel’s preoccupation (see Jer. 3:6–25). When the nation was finally exiled, the message of the new covenant transcended geographical boundaries (Jer. 32:36–44; Ezek. 36–37; cf. Lev. 26:40–45; Deut. 30:1–10). In postexilic Israel, sanctuary was prioritized (Hag. 1:9–14).

It was Israel’s redefinition of land through the exile that prepared the way for the incorporation of the Gentiles (Ezek. 47:22–23), an integration already anticipated (Isa. 56:3–7). The prophets saw a time when the nations would share in the inheritance of God previously guarded by Israel (Isa. 60; Zech. 2:11; cf. Gen. 12:3). Viewed as a political territory, land receives no substantial theological treatment in the NT; rather, inheritance surpasses covenant metaphor. Using the language of sonship and inheritance, Paul develops this new Gentile mission in Galatians (cf. Col. 1:13–14). The OT land motif fully flowers in the NT teaching of adoption (cf. 1 Pet. 1:3–5). Both curse and covenant are resolved eschatologically (Rom. 8:19–22). Inheritance is now found in Christ (Eph. 2:11–22; 1 Pet. 1:4). In the economy of the new covenant, land tenure has matured in fellowship (koinōnia). Koinōnia recalibrates the ethical significance of OT land themes, reapplying them practically through inclusion, lifestyle, economic responsibility, and social equity.

Beyond cosmological realms, heaven and earth are also theological horizons still under God’s ownership. What began as the creation mandate to fill and subdue the earth (Gen. 1:28) culminates in the new creation with Christ (Rom. 8:4–25). Under the power of Satan, the earth “lags behind” heaven. Christ’s mission brings what is qualitatively of heaven onto the earthly stage, often using signs of the budding rule of God (Matt. 6:10; Mark 2:10–11; John 3:31–36; Eph. 4:9–13; Heb. 12:25). As Israel was to stand out in a hostile world (Deut. 4:5–8), now those of Abrahamic faith stand out through Christian love (John 13:34–35; Rom. 4:9–16). According to Heb. 4:1–11, Israel’s initial rest in the land (see Exod. 33:14; Deut. 12:9) culminates in the believers’ rest in Christ (Heb. 4:3, 5). The former inheritance of space gives way to the inheritance of Christ’s presence. The OT theme of land is ultimately fulfilled in Jesus’ exhortation to “abide in me” (John 15).

Earthquake–In Palestine there have been about seventeen recorded major earthquakes in the past two millennia. One of the major sources of these earthquakes is believed to originate from the Jordan Rift Valley. In antiquity earthquakes were viewed as fearful events because the mountains, which represented everlasting durability, were disturbed. The confession of faith is pronounced in association with such phenomena (“We will not fear, though the earth give way” [Ps. 46:2]). An earthquake must have made a great impact in Amos’s day (“two years before the earthquake” [Amos 1:1; cf. Zech. 14:5]).

An earthquake has many symbolic meanings. First, the power of God and his divine presence are manifested through it (Job 9:6; Ps. 68:8; Hag. 2:6). It accompanied theophanic revelation (Exod. 19:18; Isa. 6:4; 1 Kings 19:11–12) when the glory of the Lord appeared (Ezek. 3:12). His divine presence was especially felt when earthquakes occurred during the time of the crucifixion and the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Matt. 27:54; 28:2). It led the centurion to confess of Christ, “Surely he was the Son of God!” (Matt. 27:54). God’s salvation power is represented when an earthquake comes at the appropriate moment, such as when it freed Paul and Silas from prison (Acts 16:26).

Second, it is used in the context of God’s judgment (Isa. 13:13; Amos 9:1; Nah. 1:5). It becomes the symbol of God’s anger and wrath (Ps. 18:7). God brought earthquakes upon the people to destroy evil in the world and to punish those who had sinned against him (Num. 16:31–33; Isa. 29:6; Ezek. 38:19). Earthquake activity possibly explains the background to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19:24).

Third, earthquakes are said to precede the end of time (Matt. 24:7; Mark 13:8; Luke 21:11). In the apocalyptic book of Revelation, earthquakes are regular occurrences (Rev. 6:12; 11:13, 19; 16:18).

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

Flower Imagery

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

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

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

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

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

Flowers Named in the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bible is full of teeming creatures and swarming things. These creatures, insects, often play significant roles in the stories and the events described in them. From the first chapter of the Bible to the very last book, these flying, creeping, hopping, and crawling things are prominent.

Terms for Insects

Insects are described in the Bible with both general and specific terms. In the OT, there are three general terms for insects and twenty terms used to refer to specific types of insects. In the NT, two different types of insects are referenced: gnats and locusts.

The two most common general terms for insects are variously translated. Terms and phrases used to describe them include “living creatures” (Gen. 1:20), “creatures that move along the ground” (Gen. 1:24–26; 6:7, 20; 7:8, 14, 23; 8:17, 19; Lev. 5:2; Ezek. 38:20; Hos. 2:18), that which “moves” (Gen. 9:3), “swarming things” (Lev. 11:10), “flying insects” (Lev. 11:20–21, 23; Deut. 14:19), “creatures” (Lev. 11:43), “crawling things” (Lev. 22:5; Ezek. 8:10), “reptiles” (1 Kings 4:33), “teeming creatures” (Ps. 104:25), “small creatures” (Ps. 148:10), and “sea creatures” (Hab. 1:14). The other general term for insects is used with reference to swarms of insects, typically flies (Exod. 8:21–22, 24, 29; Pss. 78:45; 105:31). Specific insects named in Scripture are listed below.

Ants. Ants are used in Proverbs as an example of and encouragement toward wisdom. In 6:6 ants serve as an example for sluggards to reform their slothful ways. Also, in 30:25 ants serve as an example of creatures that, despite their diminutive size, are wise enough to make advance preparations for the long winter.

Bees. Bees are used both literally and figuratively in Scripture. Judges 14:8 refers to honeybees, the product of which becomes the object of Samson’s riddle. The other three uses of bees in the OT are figurative of swarms of enemies against God’s people (Deut. 1:44; Ps. 118:12; Isa. 7:18).

Fleas. Fleas are referenced in the OT only by David to indicate his insignificance in comparison with King Saul (1 Sam. 24:14; 26:20). The irony of the comparison becomes clear with David’s later ascendancy.

Flies. The plague of flies follows that of gnats on Egypt (Exod. 8:20–31). Although the gnats are never said to have left Egypt, the flies are removed upon Moses’ prayer. In Eccles. 10:1 the stench of dead flies is compared to the impact that folly can have on the wise. In Isa. 7:18 flies represent Egypt being summoned by God as his avenging agents on Judah’s sin. In addition, one of the gods in Ekron was named “Baal-Zebub,” which means “lord of the flies” (2 Kings 1:2–3, 6, 16). The reference to Satan in the NT using a similar name is likely an adaptation of the OT god of Ekron (Matt. 10:25; 12:24, 27; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15, 18–19).

Gnats. Gnats are distinguished from flies in the OT, though the distinction is not always apparent. Gnats are employed by God in the third plague on Egypt (Exod. 8:16–19), while flies form the means of punishment in the fourth plague. The two are listed together in Ps. 105:31 and appear parallel, though the former may be a reference to a swarm. Gnats were also used by Jesus to illustrate the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and the scribes (Matt. 23:24).

Hornets. The Bible uses hornets in Scripture as an agent of God’s destruction. The term occurs three times in the OT. In each occurrence these stinging insects refer to God’s expulsion of the Canaanites from the land that God promised to his people. The first two times, Exod. 23:28 and Deut. 7:20, hornets are used in reference to a promise of what God will do; the third time, Josh. 24:12, they illustrate what God did.

Locusts. Of particular interest is the use of locusts in the Bible. The term or a similar nomenclature occurs close to fifty times in the NIV. Locusts demonstrate a number of characteristics in Scripture. First, they are under God’s control (Exod. 10:13–19). As such, they have no king (Prov. 30:27). They serve God’s purposes. Second, locusts often occur in very large numbers or swarms (Judg. 6:5; Jer. 46:23; Nah. 3:15). At times, their numbers can be so large as to cause darkness in the land (Exod. 10:15). Third, in large numbers these insects have been known to ravage homes, devour the land, devastate fields, and debark trees (Exod. 10:12–15; Deut. 28:38; 1 Kings 8:37; 2 Chron. 7:13; Pss. 78:46; 105:34; Isa. 33:4; Joel 1:4–7). Due to their fierceness, they were compared to horses (Rev. 9:7). Fourth, locusts hide at night (Nah. 3:17). Finally, certain types of locusts were used as food.

Moths. Moths are referred to seven times in the OT and four times in the NT. Job uses moths to illustrate the fragility of the unrighteous before God (4:19) and the impermanence of their labors (27:18). The other references to moths in Scripture present them as the consumers of the wealth (garments) and pride of humankind as a means of God’s judgment (Job 13:28; Ps. 39:11; Isa. 50:9; 51:8; Hos. 5:12; Matt. 6:19–20; Luke 12:33; James 5:2).

Functions of Insects in Scripture

As agents in God’s judgment. Insects serve a variety of functions in Scripture. Most notably, insects serve as agents of judgment from God. The OT indicates how insects were used as judgment on both Israel and their enemies.

Moses warned of God’s judgment for Israel’s violation of the covenant. He advised Israel that as a consequence of their sin, they would expend much labor in the field but harvest little, because the locusts would consume them (Deut. 28:38).

Solomon, in his prayer of dedication at the temple, beseeched God regarding judgment that he might send in the form of grasshoppers to besiege the land. He asked that when the people of God repent and pray, God would hear and forgive (2 Chron. 6:26–30). God similarly responded by promising that when he “command[s] locusts to devour the land” as judgment for sin, and his people humble themselves and pray, he will heal and forgive (2 Chron. 7:13–14; cf. 1 Kings 8:37).

The psalmist reminded Israel of God’s wonderful works in their past, one of which was his use of insects as a means of his judgment (Ps. 78:45–46; cf. 105:34).

Joel 1:4 and 2:25 describe God’s judgment on Israel for their unfaithfulness in successive waves of intensity (cf. Deut. 28:38, 42; 2 Chron. 6:28; Amos 4:9–10; 7:1–3). The devastation led to crop failure, famine, destruction of vines and fig trees, and great mourning. The severity of the judgment is described as being unlike anything anyone in the community had ever experienced (Joel 1:2–3).

Locusts are the subject of one of the visions of the prophet Amos. In the vision, God showed him the destructive power of these insects as a means of judgment. Upon seeing the vision, the prophet interceded for the people, and God relented (Amos 7:1–3).

Insects were also used as judgments on Israel’s enemies. In the plagues on Egypt, insects were the agents of the third, fourth, and eighth plagues. The third plague (Exod. 8:16–19) was gnats. Interestingly, this was the first of Moses’ signs that the magicians of Pharaoh could not reproduce. Their response to the Egyptian king was that this must be the “finger of God.” There is no record of the gnats ever leaving Egypt, unlike the other plagues.

The fourth plague was flies (Exod. 8:20–32). Here the Bible specifically indicates a distinction between the land of Goshen, where the Israelites dwelled, and the rest of the land of Egypt. The flies covered all of Egypt except Goshen. This plague led to Pharaoh’s first offer of compromise. Once Moses prayed and the flies left Egypt, Pharaoh hardened his heart.

The eighth plague was in the form of locusts (Exod. 10:1–20). In response to this plague, Pharaoh’s own officials complained to him, beseeching him to let Israel leave their country lest it be entirely destroyed. The threat of this plague led to Pharaoh’s second offer of compromise. Once the locusts began to devastate the land of Egypt, Pharaoh confessed his sin before God, but as soon as the locusts were removed, his heart again became hardened. Thus, three of the ten plagues on Egypt were in the form of insects.

At the end of a series of “woe” passages, the prophet Isaiah proclaimed God’s judgment against the enemies of his people because of their oppression. In the end, those who plundered will themselves be plundered, as if by a “swarm of locusts” (Isa. 33:1–4; cf. Jer. 51:14, 27).

Insects were also used as judgment on people who dwelled in the land of Israel prior to Israel’s occupation. Both before and after the event took place, the Bible describes how God sent hornets to help drive out the occupants of the land of Canaan in preparation for Israel’s arrival. This is described as part of God’s judgment on these nations for their sins against him (Exod. 23:28; Deut. 7:20; Josh. 24:12).

As food. Insects also are mentioned in Scripture as food. Certain types of locusts are listed as clean and eligible for consumption. The NT describes the diet of John the Baptist, which consisted of locusts and wild honey—a diet entirely dependent on insects (Matt. 3:4; Mark 1:6). The OT also notes Samson enjoying the labor of bees as food (Judg. 14:8–9).

Used figuratively. Most often, insects are used figuratively in Scripture. They are used in the proverbs of Scripture to illustrate wisdom. The sages wrote about ants (Prov. 6:6; 30:25), locusts (Prov. 30:27), and even dead flies (Eccles. 10:1) both to extol wisdom and to encourage its development in humankind.

Another figurative use of insects is in the riddle about bees and honey posed by Samson to the Philistines (Judg. 14:12–18). As noted above, Samson ate honey (Judg. 14:8–9; cf. 1 Sam. 14:25–29, 43). Also, Scripture describes the promised land as a place of “milk and honey.”

Insects also are used to symbolize pursuing enemies (Deut. 1:44; Ps. 118:12; Isa. 7:18), innumerable forces (Judg. 6:5; 7:12; Ps. 105:34; Jer. 46:23; Joel 2:25), insignificance (Num. 13:33; 1 Sam. 24:14; 26:20; Job 4:19; 27:18; Ps. 109:23; Eccles. 12:5; Isa. 40:22), vulnerability (Job 4:19), God’s incomparable nature (Job 39:20), the brevity of life (Ps. 109:23), wisdom and organization (Prov. 30:27), and an invading army (Isa. 7:18; Jer. 51:14, 27), and they are employed in a taunt against Israel’s enemies (Nah. 3:15–17), a lesson on hypocrisy (Matt. 23:24), and an image of eschatological judgment (Rev. 9:4–11).

Scriptural Truths about Insects

1. Insects are part of God’s creation. In view of all the uses of insects in Scripture, several key truths emerge. First, insects are a part of the totality of God’s creation. The very first chapter of the Bible uses one of the general terms for insects as part of God’s creative activity on the sixth day of creation (Gen. 1:24). After God reviewed the creation on that day, his assessment of it, including the insects, was that it was “good” (1:25).

2. Insects are under God’s control. A second scriptural truth related to insects in the Bible is that they are under God’s control. In Deut. 7:20 God promised to send hornets ahead of the children of Israel to prepare the promised land for their arrival. Also, in Joel 2:25, when God promised to repair the damage to the land caused by the locusts, he described them as “my great army that I sent.” Thus, the picture emerges that what God has created, he alone reserves the authority to control.

3. Insects are cared for by God. A final truth regarding insects in Scripture is that God takes care of them. Just as Jesus explained God’s care for the birds of the air (Matt. 7:26), the psalmist explained that all of God’s creation, specifically insects, “look to you to give them their food at the proper time” (Ps. 104:25–27). The conclusion of the psalmist is appropriate for all of God’s creation: “When you hide your face, they are terrified; when you take away their breath, they die and return to the dust. When you send your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the ground” (104:29–30). Thus, in the end, God creates, God controls, and God cares—a lesson that all of God’s creation shares.

(1) The son of Nun and the servant of Moses. Joshua appears thirty-three times in Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Judges. He is the principal human character of the OT book that bears his name.

As a military commander, Joshua fought against the Amalekites (Exod. 17:8–13). He became an assistant to Moses and accompanied him up and then down the mountain of God (24:13; 32:17). Joshua also kept watch over the tent of meeting (33:11).

Moses sent Joshua, Caleb, and ten others as spies to explore the land of Canaan (Num. 13). At this point, Moses also changed his name from “Hoshea” to “Joshua” (13:8, 16). Because Joshua and Caleb trusted that God would help Israel conquer Canaan, God vowed that only these two of that rebellious generation would enter the promised land (14:30). God also commanded Moses to commission Joshua as his successor. So in the presence of all Israel Moses laid his hands upon Joshua and set him apart for the task (27:15–23).

God commanded Moses to strengthen and encourage Joshua (Deut. 1:38; 3:28). Later, Moses charged Joshua with the specific task of bringing the people into the promised land (31:7, 23). Since Moses had laid his hands upon him, and he was filled with the spirit of wisdom, the children of Israel agreed to obey Joshua (34:9).

Joshua’s character as a leader is demonstrated throughout the book that bears his name. Among other things, Joshua served as a brilliant military leader (Josh. 1–12), an administrator (Josh. 13–21), and a religious leader (Josh. 24). He led the Israelites across the Jordan and presided at the allotment of land. In all of this, Joshua was “strong and courageous” (1:6), just as God and the people encouraged him to be (1:6–7, 9, 18). At the end of his life he was called, like Moses, “the servant of the Lord” (24:29). The people served God throughout the lifetime of Joshua (Judg. 2:7).

(2) The owner of the field in Beth Shemesh where the ark stopped after it returned from the Philistines (1 Sam. 6:14).

(3) The governor of Jerusalem during Josiah’s reign (2 Kings 23:8).

(4) A high priest and one of the leaders of Israel who survived the Babylonian captivity and was permitted by an edict of Cyrus to return to Jerusalem (Ezra 2:2; Neh. 7:7). He was a contemporary of Haggai and Zechariah. In many Bible versions, he is referred to as “Jeshua son of Jozadak” in Ezra and Nehemiah (e.g., Ezra 3:2; Neh. 12:26) and “Joshua son of Jehozadak” in Haggai and Zechariah (e.g., Hag. 1:1; Zech. 6:11) (the NIV standardizes his name to “Joshua son of Jozadak” throughout).

Together with Zerubbabel, Joshua helped to restore worship for the returned exiles (Ezra 3:2) and with the sometimes hazardous work of rebuilding the temple (Ezra 3:8–9; 4:3; 5:2). The high priests descended from him are listed in Neh. 12:10, but other descendants are named as guilty of intermarriage with foreign wives (Ezra 10:18). In the book of Zechariah he is the subject of two visions where he serves as a representative of Israel (Zech. 3:1–10) and as a type of Christ (6:9–15).

(5) An ancestor of Jesus in Luke’s genealogy (Luke 3:29).

(1) The son of Nun and the servant of Moses. Joshua appears thirty-three times in Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Judges. He is the principal human character of the OT book that bears his name.

As a military commander, Joshua fought against the Amalekites (Exod. 17:8–13). He became an assistant to Moses and accompanied him up and then down the mountain of God (24:13; 32:17). Joshua also kept watch over the tent of meeting (33:11).

Moses sent Joshua, Caleb, and ten others as spies to explore the land of Canaan (Num. 13). At this point, Moses also changed his name from “Hoshea” to “Joshua” (13:8, 16). Because Joshua and Caleb trusted that God would help Israel conquer Canaan, God vowed that only these two of that rebellious generation would enter the promised land (14:30). God also commanded Moses to commission Joshua as his successor. So in the presence of all Israel Moses laid his hands upon Joshua and set him apart for the task (27:15–23).

God commanded Moses to strengthen and encourage Joshua (Deut. 1:38; 3:28). Later, Moses charged Joshua with the specific task of bringing the people into the promised land (31:7, 23). Since Moses had laid his hands upon him, and he was filled with the spirit of wisdom, the children of Israel agreed to obey Joshua (34:9).

Joshua’s character as a leader is demonstrated throughout the book that bears his name. Among other things, Joshua served as a brilliant military leader (Josh. 1–12), an administrator (Josh. 13–21), and a religious leader (Josh. 24). He led the Israelites across the Jordan and presided at the allotment of land. In all of this, Joshua was “strong and courageous” (1:6), just as God and the people encouraged him to be (1:6–7, 9, 18). At the end of his life he was called, like Moses, “the servant of the Lord” (24:29). The people served God throughout the lifetime of Joshua (Judg. 2:7).

(2) The owner of the field in Beth Shemesh where the ark stopped after it returned from the Philistines (1 Sam. 6:14).

(3) The governor of Jerusalem during Josiah’s reign (2 Kings 23:8).

(4) A high priest and one of the leaders of Israel who survived the Babylonian captivity and was permitted by an edict of Cyrus to return to Jerusalem (Ezra 2:2; Neh. 7:7). He was a contemporary of Haggai and Zechariah. In many Bible versions, he is referred to as “Jeshua son of Jozadak” in Ezra and Nehemiah (e.g., Ezra 3:2; Neh. 12:26) and “Joshua son of Jehozadak” in Haggai and Zechariah (e.g., Hag. 1:1; Zech. 6:11) (the NIV standardizes his name to “Joshua son of Jozadak” throughout).

Together with Zerubbabel, Joshua helped to restore worship for the returned exiles (Ezra 3:2) and with the sometimes hazardous work of rebuilding the temple (Ezra 3:8–9; 4:3; 5:2). The high priests descended from him are listed in Neh. 12:10, but other descendants are named as guilty of intermarriage with foreign wives (Ezra 10:18). In the book of Zechariah he is the subject of two visions where he serves as a representative of Israel (Zech. 3:1–10) and as a type of Christ (6:9–15).

(5) An ancestor of Jesus in Luke’s genealogy (Luke 3:29).

“Kadesh” means “holy” or “sacred.” This city was located between the Wilderness of Paran and the Wilderness of Zin in the northeast of Sinai (Num. 20:1; 33:36). It is first mentioned by the name “En Mishpat” (“spring of judgment”)—within the context of the war of four kings (Amraphel of Shinar, Arioch of Ellasar, Kedorlaomer of Elam, and Tidal of Goyim) against five kings (Bera of Sodom, Birsha of Gomorrah, Shinab of Admah, Shemeber of Zeboyim, and the king of Zoar)—as the area where Kedorlaomer and his allies defeated the Amalekites. Abraham joined in this conflict to rescue Lot from being taken captive (Gen. 14:1–16).

Hagar, the Egyptian servant of Sarai, fled to a spring in the wilderness between Kadesh and Bered after she was found to have conceived a child by Abram. It was here that she received the promise of Ishmael’s birth (Gen. 16:11–14).

Moses sent the twelve spies out from Kadesh to survey the promised land of Canaan. The negative report of ten of those spies caused the people to hesitate to take the land (Num. 13:26). For this lack of faith, the Israelites were required to wander in the wilderness for forty years, spending thirty-eight of those years at Kadesh (Deut. 2:14). It was here that Moses’ sister Miriam died and was buried (Num. 20:1).

At Kadesh the Israelites complained about their lack of water (Num. 20:2–5). Moses was instructed by God to take his staff and to tell the rock to yield water (20:6–8). But instead, Moses struck the rock with his staff twice. The water flowed out abundantly, but Moses was punished for his disobedience by not being allowed to bring the Israelites into the land (20:11–12).

The Israelites were encamped at Kadesh when the king of Edom denied them passage through his land (Num. 20:14–21). The site eventually became the southern border of the territory allotted to the tribe of Judah (Josh. 15:1–3).

The biblical corpus known as the Pentateuch consists of the first five books of the OT: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The word “Pentateuch” comes from two Greek words (penta [“five”] and teuchos [“scroll case, book”]) and is a designation attested in the early church fathers. The collection is also commonly known as the “Five Books of Moses,” “the Law of Moses,” or simply the “Law,” reflecting the traditional Jewish name “Torah,” meaning “law” or “instruction.” The Torah is the first of three major sections that comprise the Hebrew Bible (Torah, Nebiim, Ketubim [Law, Prophets, Writings]); thus for both Jewish and Christian traditions it represents the introduction to the Bible as a whole as well as its interpretive foundation.

The English names for the books of the Pentateuch came from the Latin Vulgate, based on the Greek Septuagint. These appellations are mainly descriptive of their content. Genesis derives from “generations” or “origin,” Exodus means “going out,” Leviticus represents priestly (Levitical) service, Numbers refers to the censuses taken in the book, and Deuteronomy indicates “second law” because of Moses’ rehearsal of God’s commands (see Deut. 17:18). The Hebrew designations derive from opening words in each book. Bereshit (Genesis) means “in the beginning”; Shemot (Exodus), “[these are] the names”; Wayyiqra’ (Leviticus), “and he called”; Bemidbar (Numbers), “in the desert”; and Debarim (Deuteronomy), “[these are] the words.”

Referring to the Pentateuch as “Torah” or the “Law” reflects the climactic reception of God’s commands at Mount Sinai, which were to govern Israel’s life and worship in the promised land, including their journey to get there. However, calling the Pentateuch the “Law” can be a bit misleading because there are relatively few passages that simply list a set of commands, and all law passages are set within a broad narrative. The Pentateuch is a grand story that begins on a universal scale with the creation of the cosmos and ends on the plains of Moab as the reader anticipates the fulfillment of God’s plan to redeem a fallen world through his chosen people. The books offer distinct qualities and content, but they are also inherently dependent upon one another, as the narrative remains unbroken through the five volumes. Genesis ends with Jacob’s family in Egypt, and, though many years have passed, this is where Exodus begins. Leviticus outlines cultic life at the tabernacle (constructed at the end of Exodus) and even begins without a clear subject (“And he called . . .”), which requires the reader to supply “the Lord” from the last verse of Exodus. Numbers begins with an account of Israel’s fighting men as the nation prepares to leave Sinai, and Deuteronomy is Moses’ farewell address to the nation on the cusp of the promised land.

Authorship and Composition

Although the Pentateuch is technically an anonymous work, Jewish and Christian tradition attributes its authorship to Moses, the main figure of the story from Exodus to Deuteronomy. The arguments for attributing the authorship of the Pentateuch to Moses come from internal evidence within both Testaments. That Moses is responsible for at least portions of the Pentateuch is suggested by references to his explicit literary activity reflected within the narrative itself (Exod. 17:14; 24:4; 34:28; Num. 33:2; Deut. 31:9, 22, 24), if not implied in various literary formulas such as “the Lord said to Moses” (e.g., Exod. 39:1, 7, 21; Lev. 4:1; 11:1; 13:1; Num. 1:1; 2:1). Mosaic authorship receives support from the historical books, which use terms such as “the Book of the Law of Moses” in various forms and references in the preexilic history (Josh. 8:30–35; 23:6; 2 Kings 14:6) as well as the postexilic history (e.g., 2 Chron. 25:4; Ezra 6:18; Neh. 13:1). The same titles are used by NT authors (e.g., Mark 12:26; Luke 24:44; John 1:45), even referring to the Pentateuch simply by the name “Moses” at various points (e.g., Luke 16:29; 24:27; 2 Cor. 3:15).

Even with these examples, nowhere does the text explicitly state that Moses is responsible for the entire compilation of the Pentateuch or that he penned it with his own hand. Rather, a number of factors point to a later hand at work: Moses’ death and burial are referenced (Deut. 34), the conquest of Canaan is referred to as past (Deut. 2:12), and there is evidence that the names of people and places were updated and explained for later generations (e.g., “Dan” in Gen. 14:14; cf. Josh. 19:47; Judg. 18:28b–29). Based on these factors, it is reasonable to believe that the Pentateuch underwent editorial alteration as it was preserved within Jewish life and took its final shape after Moses’ lifetime.

Over the last century, the Documentary Hypothesis has dominated academic discussion of the Pentateuch’s composition. This theory was crystallized by Julius Wellhausen in his Prolegomena to the History of Israel in the late nineteenth century and posits that the Pentateuch originated from a variety of ancient sources derived from distinct authors and time periods that have been transmitted and joined through a long and complex process. Traditionally these documents are identified as J, E, D, and P. The J source is a document authored by the “Yahwist” (German, Jahwist) in Judah around 840 BC and is so called because the name “Yahweh” is used frequently in its text. The E source stands for “Elohist” because of its preference for the divine title “Elohim” and was composed in Israel around 700 BC. The D source stands for “Deuteronomy” because it reflects material found in that book; it was composed sometime around Josiah’s reform in 621 BC. The P document reflects material that priests would be concerned with in the postexilic time period, approximately 500 BC. This theory and its related forms stem from the scholarly concern over various literary characteristics such as the use of divine names; doublets and duplications in the text; observable patterns of style, terminology, and themes; and alleged discrepancies in facts, descriptions, and geographic or historical perspective.

Various documentary theories of composition have flourished over the last century of pentateuchal scholarship and still have many adherents. However, lack of scholarly agreement about the dating and character of the sources and the rise of other literary approaches to the text have many conservative and liberal scholars calling into question the accuracy and even interpretive benefit of the source theories. Moreover, if the literary observations used to create source distinctions can be explained in other ways, then the Documentary Hypothesis is significantly undermined.

In its canonical form, the pentateuchal narrative combines artistic prose, poetry, and law to tell a dramatic history spanning thousands of years. One could divide the story into six major sections: primeval history (Gen. 1–11), the patriarchs (Gen. 12–50), liberation from Egypt (Exod. 1–18), Sinai (Exod. 19:1–Num. 10:10), wilderness journey (Num. 10:11–36:13), and Moses’ farewell (Deuteronomy).

Primeval History (Gen. 1–11)

It is possible to divide Genesis into two parts based upon subject matter: the origin of creation and humankind’s call, fall, and punishment (chaps 1–11), and the origin of a family that would become God’s conduit of salvation and blessing for the world (chaps. 12–50).

The primeval history comprises essentially the first eleven chapters of Genesis, ending with the genealogy of Abraham in 11:26. Strictly speaking, 11:27 begins the patriarchal section with the sixth instance of the toledot formula found in Genesis, referencing Abraham’s father, Terah. The Hebrew phrase ’elleh toledot (“these are the generations of”) occurs in eleven places in Genesis and reflects a deliberate structural marker that one may use to divide the book into distinct episodes (2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10; 11:27; 25:12; 25:19; 36:1; 36:9; 37:2).

Genesis as we know it exhibits two distinct creation accounts in its first two chapters. Although critical scholars contend that the differing accounts reflect contradictory stories and different authors, it is just as convenient to recognize that the two stories vary in style and some content because they attempt to accomplish different aims. The first account, 1:1–2:3, is an artistic, poetic, symmetrical, and “heavenly” view of creation by a transcendent God, who spoke creation into being. In the second account, 2:4–25, God is immanently involved with creation as he is present in a garden, breathes life into Adam’s nostrils, dialogues and problem-solves, fashions Eve from Adam’s side, and bestows warnings and commands. Both perspectives are foundational for providing an accurate view of God’s interaction with creation in the rest of Scripture.

As one progresses through chapters 1–11, the story quickly changes from what God has established as “very good” to discord, sin, and shame. Chapter 3 reflects the “fall” of humanity as Adam and Eve sin in eating from the forbidden tree in direct disobedience to God. The serpent shrewdly deceives the first couple, and thus all three incur God’s curses, which extend to unlimited generations. Sin that breaks the vertical relationship between God and humanity intrinsically leads to horizontal strife between humans. Sin and disunity on the earth only intensify as one moves from the murder story of Cain and Abel in chapter 4 to the flood in chapters 5–9. Violence, evil, and disorder have so pervaded the earth that God sends a deluge to wipe out all living things, save one righteous man and his family, along with an ark full of animals. God makes the first covenant recorded in the biblical narrative with Noah (6:18), promising to save him from the flood as he commands Noah to build an ark and gather food for survival. Noah fulfills all that God has commanded (6:22; 7:5), and God remembers his promise (8:1). This is the prototypical salvation story for the rest of Scripture.

Chapter 9 reflects a new start for humanity and all living things as the creation mandate to “be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it,” first introduced in 1:28, is restated along with the reminder that humankind is made in God’s image (1:27). Bearing the image involves new responsibilities and stipulations in the postdiluvian era (9:2–6). There will be enmity between humans and animals, animals are now appropriate food, and yet lifeblood will be specially revered. God still requires accountability for just and discriminate shedding of blood and orderly relationships, as he has proved in the deluge, but now he relinquishes this responsibility to humankind. In return, God promises never to destroy all flesh again, and he will set the rainbow in the sky as a personal reminder. Like the covenant with Noah in 6:18, the postdiluvian covenant involves humankind fulfilling commands (9:1–7) and God remembering his covenant (9:8–17), specially termed “everlasting” (9:16).

The primeval commentary on humankind’s unabating sinful condition (e.g., 6:5; 8:21) proves true as Noah becomes drunk and naked and his son Ham (father of Canaan) shames him by failing to conceal his father’s negligence. Instead of multiplying, filling, and subduing the earth as God has intended, humankind collaborates to make a name for itself by building a sort of stairway to heaven within a special city (11:4). God foils such haughty plans by scattering the people across the earth and confusing their language. Expressed in an orderly chiastic structure, the story of the tower of Babel demonstrates that God condescends (11:5) to set things straight with humanity.

Patriarchs (Gen. 12–50)

Although the primeval history is foundational for understanding the rest of the Bible, more space in Genesis is devoted to the patriarchal figures Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph. In general, the Abrahamic narrative spans chapters 12–25, the story of Isaac serves as a transition to the Jacob cycle of chapters 25–37, and the Joseph narrative finishes the book of Genesis in chapters 37–50.

The transition from the primeval history to the patriarchs (11:27–32) reveals how Abraham, the father of Israel, moves from the east and settles in Harran as the family ventures to settle in Canaan. In Harran, Abraham receives the call of God’s redemptive plan, which reverberates through Scripture. God will bless him with land, make him a great nation, grant him special favor, and use him as a conduit of blessings to the world (12:1–3). In 11:30 is the indication that the barrenness of Abraham’s wife (Sarah) relates to the essence of God’s magnificent promises. How one becomes great in name and number, secures enemy territory, and is to bless all peoples without a descendant becomes the compelling question of the Abrahamic narrative. The interchange between Abraham’s faith in God and his attempts to contrive covenant fulfillment colors the entire narrative leading up to chapter 22. It is there that Abraham’s faith is ultimately put to the test as God asks him to sacrifice the promised son, Isaac. Abraham passes God’s faith test, and a ram is provided to take Isaac’s place. This everlasting covenant that was previously sealed by the sign of circumcision is climactically procured for future generations through Abraham’s exemplary obedience (22:16–18; cf. 15:1–21; 17:1–27).

The patriarchal stories that follow show that the Abrahamic promises are renewed with subsequent generations (see 26:3–4; 28:13–14) and survive various threats to fulfillment. The story of Isaac serves mainly as a bridge to the Jacob cycle, as he exists primarily as a passive character in relation to Abraham and Jacob.

Deception, struggle, rivalry, and favoritism characterize the Jacob narrative, as first exemplified in the jostling of twin boys in Rebekah’s womb (25:22). Jacob supplants his twin brother, Esau, for the firstborn’s blessing and birthright. He flees to Paddan Aram (northern Mesopotamia), marries two sisters, takes their maidservants as concubines, and has eleven children, followed by a falling-out with his father-in-law. Jacob’s struggle for God’s blessing that began with Esau comes to a head in his wrestling encounter with God at Peniel. Ultimately, Jacob emerges victorious and receives God’s blessing and a name change, “Israel” (“one who struggles with God”). Throughout the Jacob story, God demonstrates his faithfulness to the Abrahamic covenant and reiterates the promises to Jacob, most notably at Bethel (chaps. 28; 35). The interpersonal strife of Jacob’s life is thus enveloped within a message of reconciliation not just with Esau (chap. 33) but ultimately with God. The reader learns from the episodes in Jacob’s life that although God works through the lives of weak and failing people, his promises for Israel remain secure.

Although Jacob and his family are already living in Canaan, God intends for them to move to Egypt and grow into a powerful nation before fulfilling their conquest of the promised land (see 15:13–16). The story of Joseph explains how the family ends up in Egypt at the close of Genesis. Joseph is specially loved by his father, which elicits significant jealousy from his brothers, who sell him off to some nomads and fabricate the alibi that he has been killed by a wild beast. Joseph winds up in Pharaoh’s household and eventually becomes his top official. When famine strikes Canaan years later, Joseph’s brothers go to Egypt to purchase food from the royal court, and Joseph reveals his identity to them in an emotional reunion. Jacob’s entire family moves to Egypt to live for a time in prosperity under Joseph’s care. The Joseph story illustrates the mysterious relationship of human decision and divine sovereignty (50:20).

Liberation from Egypt (Exod. 1–18)

Genesis shows how Abraham develops into a large family. Exodus shows how this family becomes a nation—enslaved, freed, and then taught the ways of God. Although it appears that Exodus continues a riveting story of God’s chosen people, it is actually the identity and power of God that take center stage.

Many years have passed since Joseph’s family arrived in Egypt. The Hebrews’ good standing in Egypt has also diminished as their multiplication and fruitfulness during the intervening period—just as God had promised Abraham (Gen. 17:4–8)—became a national threat to the Egyptians. Abraham’s family will spend time in Egyptian slavery before being liberated with many possessions in hand (cf. Gen. 15:13–14).

In the book of Exodus the drama of suffering and salvation serves as the vehicle for God’s self-disclosure to a single man, Moses. Moses is an Israelite of destiny even from birth, as he providentially avoids infant death and rises to power and influence in Pharaoh’s household. Moses never loses his passion for his own people, and he kills an Egyptian who was beating a fellow Hebrew. Moses flees to obscurity in the desert, where he meets God and his call to lead his people out of Egypt and to the promised land (3:7–8; 6:8). Like the days of Noah’s salvation, God has remembered his covenant with the patriarchs and responded to the groans of his people in Egypt (2:24; 6:4–5; cf. Gen. 8:1). God reveals himself, and his personal name “Yahweh” (“I am”), to Moses in the great theophany of the burning bush at Mount Horeb (Sinai), the same place where later he will receive God’s law. Moses doubts his own ability to carry out the task of confronting Pharaoh and leading the exodus, but God foretells that many amazing signs and wonders not only will make the escape possible but also will ultimately reveal the mighty nature of God to the Hebrews, Egypt, and presumably the world (6:7; 7:5).

This promise of creating a nation of his people through deliverance is succinctly conveyed in the classic covenant formula that finds significance in the rest of the OT: “I will take you as my own people, and I will be your God” (6:7). Wielding great power over nature and at times even human decision, God “hardens” Pharaoh’s heart and sends ten plagues to demonstrate his favor for his own people and wrath against their enemy nation. The tenth plague on the firstborn of all in Egypt provides the context for the Passover as God spares the firstborn of Israel in response to the placement of sacrificial blood on the doorposts of their homes. Pharaoh persists in the attempt to overtake the Israelites in the desert, where the power of God climaxes in parting the Red Sea (or Sea of Reeds). The Israelites successfully pass through, but the Egyptian army drowns in pursuit. This is the great salvation event of the OT.

The song of praise for God’s deliverance (15:1–21) quickly turns to cries of groaning in the seventy days following the exodus as the people of the nation, grumbling about their circumstances in the desert, quickly demonstrate their fleeting trust in the one who has saved them (Exod. 15:22–18:27). When a shortage of water and food confronts the people, their faith in God’s care proves shallow, and they turn on Moses. Even though the special marks of God’s protection have been evident in the wilderness through the pillars of cloud and fire, the angel of God, the provision of manna and quail, water from the rock, and the leadership of Moses, the nation continually fails God’s tests of trust and obedience (16:4; cf. 17:2; 20:20). Yet God continues to endure with his people through the leadership of Moses.

Sinai (Exod. 19:1–Num. 10:10)

Most of the pentateuchal narrative takes place at Mount Sinai. It is there that Israel receives national legislation and prescriptions for the tabernacle, the priesthood, feasts and festivals, and other covenantal demands for living as God’s chosen people. The eleven-month stay at Sinai takes the biblical reader through the center of the Pentateuch, covering approximately the last half of Exodus, all of Leviticus, and the first third of Numbers, before the nation leaves this sacred site and sojourns in the wilderness. Several key sections of the Pentateuch fall within the Sinai story: the Decalogue (Exod. 20:1–17), the Book of the Covenant (Exod. 20:22–23:33), the tabernacle prescriptions (Exod. 25–31), the tabernacle construction (Exod. 35–40), the manual on ritual worship (Lev. 1–7), and the Holiness Code (Lev. 17–27).

The events and instruction at Sinai are central to the Israelite religious experience and reflect the third eternal covenant that God establishes in the Pentateuch—this time with Israel, whereby the Sabbath is the sign (Exod. 31:16; cf. Noahic/rainbow covenant [Gen. 9:16] and the Abrahamic/circumcision covenant [Gen. 17:7, 13, 19]). The offices of prophet and priest develop into clear view in this portion of the Pentateuch. Moses exemplifies the dual prophetic function of representing the people when speaking with God and, in turn, God when speaking to the people. The priesthood is bestowed upon Aaron and his descendants in Exodus and inaugurated within one of the few narrative sections of Leviticus (Lev. 8–10). The giving of the law, the ark, the tabernacle, the priesthood, and the Sabbath are all a part of God’s making himself “known” to Israel and the world, which is a constant theme in Exodus (see, e.g., 25:22; 29:43, 46; 31:13).

The Israelites’ stay at Sinai opens with one of the greatest theophanies of the Bible: God speaks aloud to the people (Exod. 19–20) and then is envisioned as a consuming fire (Exod. 24). After communicating the Ten Commandments (“ten words”) directly to the people (Exod. 34:28; Deut. 4:13; 10:4), Moses mediates the rest of the detailed obligations that will govern the future life of the nation. The covenant is ratified in ceremonial fashion (Exod. 24), and the Israelites vow to fulfill all that has been spoken. God expects Israel to be a holy nation (Exod. 19:6) with whom he may dwell, but Moses descends Sinai only to find that the Israelites have already violated the essence of the Decalogue by fashioning a golden calf to worship as that which delivered them from Egypt (Exod. 32). This places Israel’s future and calling in jeopardy, but Moses intercedes for his people, and God graciously promises to preserve the nation and abide with it in his mercy, even while punishing the guilty. This becomes prototypical of God’s relationship with his people in the future (Exod. 34:6–7).

Exodus ends with the consecration of the tabernacle and the descent of God’s presence there. With the tent of worship in order, the priesthood and its rituals can be officially established. Leviticus reflects divine instructions for how a sinful people may live safely in close proximity to God. Holy living involves dealing with sin and minimizing the need for atonement, purification, and restitution. The sacrificial and worship system established in Leviticus is based on a worldview of order, perfection, and purity, which should characterize a people who are commanded, “Be holy because I, the Lord your God, am holy’ (Lev. 19:2; cf. 11:44–45; 20:26). With these rules in place, the Israelites can make final preparations to depart Sinai and move forward on their journey. Numbers 1–10 spans a nineteen-day period of such activities as the Israelites begin to focus on dispossessing their enemies. These chapters reflect a census of fighting men, the priority of purity, the dedication of the tabernacle, and the observance of the Passover before commencing the quest to Canaan.

Wilderness Journey (Num. 10:11–36:13)

The rest of the book of Numbers covers the remainder of a forty-year stretch of great peaks and valleys in the faith and future of the nation. Chapters 11–25 recount the various events that show the exodus generation’s lack of trust in God. Chapters 26–36 reveal a more positive section whereby a new generation prepares for the conquest. With the third section of Numbers framed by episodes involving the inheritance rights of Zelophehad’s daughters (27:1–11; 36:1–13), it is clear that the story has turned to the future possession of the land.

After the departure from Sinai, the narrative consists of a number of Israelite complaints in the desert. The Israelites have grown tired of manna and ironically crave the food of Egypt, which they recall as free fish, fruits, and vegetables. Having forgotten the hardship of life in slavery, about which they had cried out to God, now the nation is crying out for a lifestyle of old. Moses becomes so overwhelmed with the complaints of the people that God provides seventy elders, who, to help shoulder the leadership burden, will receive the same prophetic spirit given to Moses.

In chapters 13–14 twelve spies are sent out from Kadesh Barnea to peruse Canaan, but the people’s lack of faith to procure the land from the mighty people there proves costly. This final example of distrust moves God to punish and purify the nation. The unbelieving generation will die in the wilderness during a forty-year period of wandering.

The discontent in the desert involves not only food and water but also leadership status. Moses’ own brother and sister resent his special relationship with God and challenge his exclusive authority. Later, Aaron’s special high priesthood is threatened as another Levitical family (Korah) vies for preeminence. Through a sequence of signs and wonders, God makes it clear that Moses and Aaron have exclusive roles in God’s economy. Due to the deaths related to Korah’s rebellion and the fruitless staffs that represent the tribes of Israel, the nation’s concern about sudden extinction in the presence of a holy God is appeased through the eternal covenant of priesthood granted to Aaron’s family (chap. 18). He and the Levites, at the potential expense of their own lives and as part of their priestly service, will be held accountable for keeping the tabernacle pure of encroachers.

Even after the people’s significant rebellion and punishment, God continues to prove his faithfulness to his word. Hope is restored for the nation as the Abrahamic promises of blessing are rehearsed from the mouth of Balaam, a Mesopotamian seer. The Israelites will indeed one day be numerous (23:10), enjoy the presence of God (23:21), be blessed and protected (24:9), and have a kingly leader (24:17). This wonderful mountaintop experience of hope for the exodus generation is tragically countered by an even greater event of apostasy in the subsequent scene. Reminiscent of the incident of the golden calf, when pagan revelry in the camp had foiled Moses’ interaction with God on Sinai, apostasy at the tabernacle undermines Balaam’s oracles of covenant fulfillment. Fornication with Moabite women not only joins the nation to a foreign god but also betrays God’s holiness at his place of dwelling. If not for the zeal of Aaron’s grandson Phinehas, who puts an end to the sin, the ensuing plague could have finished the nation. For his righteous action, Phinehas is awarded an eternal priesthood and ensures a future for the nation and Aaron’s priestly lineage.

In chapter 26 a second census of fighting men indicates that the old, unbelieving exodus generation has officially died off (except for Joshua and Caleb), and God is proceeding with a new people. God dispossesses the enemies of the new generation; reinstates the tribal boundaries of the land; reinstates rules concerning worship, service, and bloodshed; and places Joshua at the helm of leadership. Chapters 26–36 mention no deaths or rebellions as the nation optimistically ends its journey in Moab, just east of the promised land.

Moses’ Farewell (Deuteronomy)

Although one could reasonably move into the historical books at the end of Numbers, much would be lost in overstepping Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy presents Moses’ farewell speeches as his final words to a nation on the verge of Caanan. Moses’ speeches are best viewed as sermons motivating his people to embrace the Sinai covenant, love their God, and choose life over death and blessings over cursings (30:19). Moses reviews the desert experience since Mount Horeb/Sinai (chaps. 1–4) and recapitulates God’s expectations for lawful living in the land (chaps. 5–26). The covenant code is recorded on a scroll, is designated the “Book of the Law” (31:24–26), and is to be read and revered by the future king. Finally, Moses leads the nation in covenant renewal (chaps. 29–32) before the book finishes with an account of his death (chaps. 33–34), including tributes such as “since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face” (34:10).

Deuteronomy reflects that true covenant faithfulness is achieved from a right heart for God. If there were any previous doubts about the essence of covenant keeping, Moses eliminates such in Deuteronomy with the frequent use of emotive terms. Loving God involves committing to him alone and spurning idols and foreign gods. The Ten Commandments (chap. 5) are not a list of stale requirements; they reflect the great Shema with the words “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts” (6:5–6). God desires an unrivaled love from the nation, not cold and superficial religiosity.

Obedience by the Israelites will incur material and spiritual blessing, whereas disobedience ends in the loss of both. Although Moses strongly commends covenant obedience, and the nation participates in a covenant-renewal ceremony (chap. 27), it is clear that in the future the Israelites will fail to uphold their covenant obligations and will suffer the consequences (29:23; 30:1–4; 31:16–17). Yet Moses looks to a day when the command for circumcised hearts (10:16) will be fulfilled by the power of God himself (30:6). In the future a new king will arise from the nation (17:14–20) as well as a prophet like Moses (18:15–22). Deuteronomy thus underscores the extent of God’s own devotion to his patriarchal promises despite the sinful nature of his people.

For much of the middle and end of the twentieth century, Deuteronomy has received a significant amount of attention for its apparent resemblance in structure and content to ancient Hittite and Assyrian treaties. Scholars debate the extent of similarity, but it is possible that Deuteronomy reflects a suzerain-vassal treaty form between Israel and God much like the common format between nations in the ancient Near East. Although comparative investigation of this type can be profitable for interpretation, it is prudent to be conservative when outlining direct parallels, since Deuteronomy is not a legal document but rather a dramatic narrative of God’s redemptive interaction with the world.

The Philistines inhabited the southern coastal plain of Palestine as early as the time of Abraham (Gen. 21:32, 34; 26:1, 8, 14–15, 18) and of Moses (Exod. 13:17; 15:14; 23:31), and as late as the exilic (Ezek. 16:27, 57; 25:15–16) and postexilic (Zech. 9:6) periods.

History and Culture

The geographical origin(s) of the Philistines cannot be stated with certainty, though it appears likely that at least some of the Philistines came from the vicinity of the Aegean Sea. The Philistines were descendants of the Kasluhites (Gen. 10:14; cf. 1 Chron. 1:12), a group whose identity is uncertain. Since the Kasluhites are descendants of Ham listed among other peoples from Egypt (Gen. 10:6, 13–14), perhaps the Philistines migrated from the Nile Delta to one of the Mediterranean islands before moving to Canaan.

There was apparently a close association between the Kasluhites and the Caphtorites (cf. Gen. 10:14), for Amos 9:7 suggests that the Philistines were from Caphtor (cf. Deut. 2:23; Jer. 47:4), a region usually identified with Crete. The connection with Crete is seen with greater clarity in Ezek. 25:16; Zeph. 2:5–6, for both prophets refer to the Philistines and the Kerethites (= Cretans) in parallel phrases. Caution leads us to note that the authors of Samuel and Kings, though frequently referring to the Philistines, did not clearly equate the Philistines and the Kerethites (cf. 1 Sam. 30:14; 2 Sam. 8:18; 15:18; 20:7, 23; 1 Kings 1:38, 44; 1 Chron. 18:17).

The material culture of the Philistines between about 1150 and 1000 BC shows similarities to, and likely influence from, what is found in the islands of the Aegean Sea, Mycenae (southern Greece), Crete, Anatolia (south-central Turkey), Cyprus (cf. Num. 24:24), Egypt, and Canaan.

Philistine pottery of this time resembles what has been found in Mycenae (bowls, jars, and cups), Crete (cups), Cyprus (bottles, vessels, and a hollow pottery ring), and Egypt (jugs and cups). The spear and defensive gear of Goliath (1 Sam. 17:5–7) were similar to the equipment of Aegean warriors. The hearths found at Tel Miqne (Ekron) and Tell Qasile were designed like those in Anatolia and the Aegean region. Philistine mud-brick altars were likely fashioned in light of Aegean, Cyprian, and Canaanite influence. The Ashdoda (a throne representing a female deity) reflects Mycenaean, Cyprian, and Canaanite inspiration. This archaeological evidence suggests that at least some of the Philistine inhabitants of the southern coastal plain of Palestine came from Mycenae (southern Greece) and the islands of the Aegean Sea in the late thirteenth or early twelfth centuries BC, passing through Cyprus and Crete (and perhaps Anatolia and/or Egypt) en route.

The Philistines adopted Canaanite gods (cf. 1 Sam. 17:43), including Dagon (Judg. 16:23; 1 Sam. 5:2–7), Ashtoreth (1 Sam. 31:10; cf. Judg. 10:6; 1 Sam. 7:3–4), and Baal-Zebub (“lord of flies,” probably a cynical distortion of Baal-Zebul, “lord of the [heavenly] dwelling”), the god of Ekron (2 Kings 1:2–6, 16).

The Philistine Pentapolis consisted of three cities on or near the Mediterranean coast (Ashkelon, Ashdod, and Gaza) and two inland cities (Ekron and Gath) under the authority of five rulers (cf. Josh. 13:3; Judg. 3:3; 1 Sam. 6:4, 16, 18).

Papyrus Harris I describes the defeat of the Philistines and other Sea Peoples by Ram-esses III (1198–1166 BC), while the Egyptian Onomasticon of Amenope (late twelfth or early eleventh century BC) refers to the Philistines as one of the ethnic groups that settled in Palestine.

Philistines in the Bible

The mention of Philistines in Gen. 21 and 26 refers either to early inhabitants of the territory that later would be inhabited by Philistines or to peoples who later would become part of the Philistine nation. The Philistines mentioned in the Bible may constitute diverse peoples who migrated by land or by sea to the southern coastal region of Palestine over several centuries.

Prior to the influx of at least some of the Philistines from eastern Mediterranean islands, the southern coastal region was, at various times, inhabited by Canaanites (Num. 13:29; Deut. 1:7; Josh. 5:1; cf. Josh. 13:4); Anakites, who fled to Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod after being defeated by Joshua (Josh. 11:21–22); and Avvites, who were replaced by the victorious Caphtorites (Deut. 2:23; Josh. 13:3).

The migration of Judah and other tribes of Israel into Canaan resulted in several centuries of hostility with the Philistines. Judah’s allotment of land included the cities and surrounding areas of Ekron, Ashdod, and Gaza, as well as “the coastline of the Mediterranean Sea” (Josh. 15:45–47). The soldiers of Judah subsequently conquered at least part of this area (Judg. 1:18).

During the time of the judges, Shamgar “struck down six hundred Philistines with an oxgoad” (Judg. 3:31). Samson burned the grain, vineyards, and olive groves of the Philistines when he fastened torches to the tails of foxes (15:4–5). He killed a thousand Philistines with the jawbone of a donkey (15:15) and, after they had gouged out his eyes, killed many Philistine leaders when he pushed over the pillars supporting one of their temples (16:21, 29–30).

In one of their many victories over Israel (cf. Judg. 10:7; 13:1; 15:11; 1 Sam. 4:2, 10; 12:9), the Philistines captured the ark of God and placed it in the temple of Dagon in Ashdod (5:1). The next day the god was found lying on his face before the ark of God.

Saul’s reign as Israel’s king was characterized by war with the Philistines (1 Sam. 9:16; 14:52; cf. 7:13) and included both defeat (13:6–7; 23:27; 31:1) and victory (14:13, 22, 31, 47; 17:52–53; 24:1).

The military dominance of the Philistines over Israel during the time of Saul is attributed to their control of blacksmithing and ironwork (1 Sam. 13:19–22). This superiority in weapons allowed the Philistines to extend their influence beyond the region of the five cities into Judean territory (1 Sam. 4:1; 7:7; 10:5; 13:3, 16–18, 23; 17:1; 29:1, 11; 31:7–8, 10; 2 Sam. 5:18, 22; 23:14).

Saul became jealous of David after his defeat of the Philistine champion Goliath (1 Sam. 17:4, 50; 18:7–9). To win the hand of Saul’s daughter Michal, David and his men killed two hundred Philistines and presented their foreskins to Saul (18:27). When Saul later attempted to kill David, David sought refuge with the Philistines and lived with them for sixteen months (27:1, 7).

When the Philistines gathered to fight against Israel, David’s host, Achish, invited him to participate in the battle against his enemy Saul (1 Sam. 28:1). David was spared the dilemma of fighting against his own people when, fearing his betrayal, the other Philistine rulers refused to let David accompany them (29:4). In the ensuing battle between Israel and the Philistines, Saul’s sons were killed, and Saul took his own life after being critically injured by a Philistine archer (31:2–4).

David’s early success in battle against the Philistines (1 Sam. 17:50; 19:8; 23:5) continued upon his accession to kingship after the death of Saul (2 Sam. 5:20, 25; 8:1, 12), though in his old age David was too tired to fight well against the Philistines (2 Sam. 21:15).

Later battles between Judah and the Philistines took place during the reigns of Jehoram (2 Chron. 21:16–17), Uzziah (2 Chron. 26:6–7), Ahaz (2 Chron. 28:18), and Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:8). Jehoshaphat received tribute from the Philistines (2 Chron. 17:11).

A people group also called the “Anakites” (Deut. 2:11 [NRSV: “Anakim”]). They are described as giants (Deut. 3:11) who made Moses’ spies feel like grasshoppers in comparison, and they are associated with the antediluvian Nephilim (Gen. 6:4; Num. 13:33). Thus, the KJV often translates the term as “giants” (e.g., Deut. 2:11; Josh. 12:4).

A people group also called the “Anakites” (Deut. 2:11 [NRSV: “Anakim”]). They are described as giants (Deut. 3:11) who made Moses’ spies feel like grasshoppers in comparison, and they are associated with the antediluvian Nephilim (Gen. 6:4; Num. 13:33). Thus, the KJV often translates the term as “giants” (e.g., Deut. 2:11; Josh. 12:4).

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

Flower Imagery

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

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

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

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

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

Flowers Named in the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Flower Imagery

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

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

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

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

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

Flowers Named in the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This term (Gr. syrophoinikissa) occurs only in Mark 7:26 (cf. NIV: “born in Syrian Phoenicia”) and designates an inhabitant of Syrophoenicia. Mark 7:26 specifies the woman as a Syrophoenician by lineage and also calls her a “Greek.” Matthew 15:22 calls the same woman a “Canaanite” (which corresponds to the Phoenicians’ definition but may also be understood as a general term including the early inhabitants of Phoenicia; cf. Num. 13:29) in order to highlight a contrast: this descendant of prototypical idolaters (Deut. 7:1–6; Ezra 9:1) exhibited more faith than most of Israel. In light of the two texts, it seems that the woman was a Greek-speaking member of the Phoenician people, still recognized by Jews as Canaanites.

Phoenicia was so called by the Greeks because of its famed trade in purple-red dye (Gr. phoinix). Phoenicia, a coastal region that included Tyre and Sidon, had been incorporated into the Roman province of Syria before NT times. The term “Syrophoenician” distinguished Phoenicians from Syria from those who lived near Carthage in North Africa and were called “Lybophoenicians” (cf. Strabo, Geogr. 17.3.19). Syrophoenicia was officially designated a separate district within the province of Syria in AD 194.

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

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

Mapping the Route

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

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

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

Reminder of Rebellion and Its Consequences

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

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

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

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

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

Mapping the Route

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

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

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

Reminder of Rebellion and Its Consequences

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

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

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