A large tent or canopy or something that resembles such a covering; also, a separately identified section of a building, possibly partially detached. In English, the word “pavilion” conveys a sense of lavishness or grandeur, and it is used only twice by a significant number of translators: in Job 36:29 as a metaphor for the spread of clouds covering God, and in Jer. 43:10 to refer to a canopy for a royal throne. A few versions use “pavilion” to translate several different Hebrew words with the following meanings: booth (2 Sam. 22:12; 1 Kings 20:12, 16; Ps. 31:20; Isa. 4:6); tent (2 Sam. 6:17; Ps. 27:5; Dan. 11:45); high architectural structure (Ezek. 16:24, 25, 31, 39); cloth covering, sometimes specifically referring to a ceremonial Jewish wedding tent, or chuppah (Ps. 19:5; Isa. 4:5); the women’s section of a tent (Num. 25:8); colonnade or courtyard (1 Chron. 26:18); covered way (2 Kings 16:18).

The term “antichrist” (Gk. antichristos) is used only four times in the Bible (1 John 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2 John 7). John warns his readers that it is already the last hour, and that just as they “have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come” (1 John 2:18; cf. 4:3). John defines the antichrist as the one who denies that God has come in the flesh in the person of Jesus Christ (1 John 2:22; 4:3; 2 John 7).

The concept of antichrist-type figures surfaces elsewhere in the NT. Jesus mentions “false messiahs and false prophets” who will “perform signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect” (Mark 13:22). Paul speaks of a “man of lawlessness” who will “oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God” (2 Thess. 2:3–4). In Rev. 13 John describes the most famous antichrist figure of all: the “beast coming out of the sea.” Throughout the OT the false-prophet tradition (e.g., Deut. 13; 18; Jer. 23; Ezek. 12–14) describes religious individuals from within the community who attempt to deceive God’s people. Also, there was a common belief in an oppressive ruler from outside the community who would persecute the righteous (e.g., Dan. 8; 11). By the late first century, when Revelation was written, people would have been familiar with a host of pagan rulers who had exalted themselves as gods (the king of Babylon [Isa. 14], the pharaoh [Ezek. 29], Antiochus Epiphanes [Dan. 11], and Roman emperors such as Caligula, Nero, and Domitian). The evil-ruler tradition and the false-prophet tradition seem to converge in Rev. 13 as the beast from the sea (the antichrist) and the beast from the earth (the false prophet).

Most scholars agree that the original beast described in Rev. 13 was a Roman emperor (either Nero or Domitian) who demanded to be worshiped as God. Supported by a second beast, the cult of Caesar worship enforced by priests throughout the empire, the imperial system demanded that Christians choose between two opposing confessions: Caesar is Lord or Jesus is Lord. More specifically, Revelation indicates that the “beast coming out of the sea” is empowered by Satan (vv. 1–2, 4), masquerades as Christ (vv. 1, 3, 12, 14), accepts worship as a god (vv. 4, 8), wields extensive power (vv. 4, 7), blasphemes and slanders God (vv. 1, 5–6), and ruthlessly persecutes the saints (v. 7). The “beast coming out of the earth” (emperor cult) is also empowered by Satan (vv. 11, 14), promotes the worship of the first beast (vv. 12, 14–15), performs signs and wonders designed to deceive (vv. 13–15), and causes those who refused to worship the first beast to be put to death physically (v. 15) or economically (vv. 16–17). But in spite of their final effort to take God’s place and conquer God’s people, Christ will return to destroy the antichrist and the false prophet in the lake of fire (17:8; 19:19–21).

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

Historical Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literary Considerations and Outline

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

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

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

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

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

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

E. Writing on the wall (5:1–31)

F. Daniel in the lions’ den (6:1–28)

II. Four Visions (7:1–12:13)

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

B. The ram and the goat (8:1–27)

C. The seventy weeks (9:1–27)

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

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

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

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

Theological Message

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

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

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

New Testament Connections

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

In ancient Israel there were forts, fortification systems (forts protecting routes or borders), and fortified towns/cities. These came in all shapes and sizes (oval, rectangular, square, and rectangular with towers). The question becomes “Is it a fortified city/town, or is it a military outpost (i.e., fort/fortress)?” The answer depends on the size and location of the structure.

There are eight main Hebrew terms used in the Bible to describe a fortress or fortification. However, there is overlap in the use and translation of the terms. The NIV typically translates these words as “fortress,” “stronghold,” “refuge,” or “citadel.” Sometimes the terms are used poetically in a description of God (i.e., God is our “fortress”). The eight Hebrew terms are (1) birah—“fortress, citadel” (2 Chron. 27:4 [NIV: “forts”]; Neh. 2:8; 7:2); (2) birta’—“castle, citadel” (Aramaic word in Ezra 6:2; cf. the Akkadian term birtu, “fortress”); (3) metsurah—“fortress, stronghold” (Nah. 2:1; used with “city,” it can function as an adjective: “fortified city”); (4) misgeret—“stronghold, bulwark” (2 Sam. 22:46; Ps. 18:45; Mic. 7:17 [NIV: “den”]); (5) ma’oz—“stronghold, refuge, fortress” (Judg. 6:26 [NIV: “height”]; Prov. 10:29; Dan. 11:7, 19, 31, 38–39; Nah. 1:7); (6) metsudah—“fastness, stronghold” (1 Sam. 22:4; 2 Sam. 22:2); (7) matsor—“rampart, stronghold” (Zech. 9:3); and (8) misgab—“height, stronghold, fortress” (Pss. 59:16–17; 62:2; Jer. 48:1).

In the tenth century BC the typical smaller fortress was oval, and the larger ones were rectangular, usually with hollow casemate walls with rooms on the inside (e.g., Tel Ein el-Qudeirat, ’Ain Qadeis, and Horvat Ketef Shivta). Many of these oval forts were located in the southern Negev to protect the border and trade routes. Forts usually stood on a height overlooking a trade route, and the local water supply often was a cistern in or near the fortress. Fortresses of the ninth and tenth centuries BC were rectangular, with (and without) corner towers and solid rather than casemate walls (e.g., Tel Arad, Tel Nagila, and Khirbet Abu et-Twein). The seventh- and sixth-century BC fortresses returned to hollow casemate walls for various reasons (e.g., Horvat Radum, Deir Baghl, Tel Ein el-Qudeirat [Kadesh-Barnea]).

A strict division between fortresses and cities was not possible in much of the ancient world, since many major towns were surrounded with protective walls and fortifications. Royal figures, however, did have stand-alone fortresses built within some towns. In 2 Sam. 5:7–9 David captures Zion, a fortress-city, from the Jebusites (see also 1 Chron. 11:5–7). Solomon further enhances the defensive fortifications of Jerusalem (1 Kings 3:1; 2 Chron. 2:1), as do several kings who come after him (e.g., 1 Kings 15:18; 16:18; 18:3; 2 Kings 11:5; 2 Chron. 26:9, 15).

Royal residences, such as those of the pharaohs (Gen. 12:15) and of the kings of Babylon (2 Kings 20:18; Dan. 1:4), Tyre (2 Sam. 24:7), Samaria (2 Kings 15:25), and Persia (Esther 1:5; 5:1; 7:7–8), also served as castles. In Nehemiah’s time, Hananiah is made ruler of the palace fort in Jerusalem (Neh. 2:8; 7:2). Fortified towers also contributed to the defensive equipment of many ancient cities (Gen. 11:1–9; 35:21; Judg. 8:8–9, 17; 9:46, 49; Neh. 3:1; 12:39; Song 4:4; Luke 13:4).

In addition to palaces and fortified cities, numerous smaller castle-type structures are mentioned in the Bible. These forts, usually fairly small, were important for guarding trade routes and major entrance points into a kingdom, and they allowed a ruler to exercise control over a much larger region than would have been possible otherwise. Normally these structures were composed of stone, hardened mud-brick, or a combination of the two, and constituted a tightly packed arrangement of walls, gates, and guard towers. A system of fortresses existed throughout Israel in the time of the unified monarchy, such as those built by David throughout Aram (2 Sam. 8:6) and Edom (2 Sam. 8:14; 1 Chron. 18:13), and those built by Solomon (1 Kings 9:19). Later, Rehoboam expanded this network of forts, which included the strong fortress at Lachish, and further built up the defensive capabilities of many of the towns in Judah (2 Chron. 11:5–11). The later kings Jehoshaphat and Jotham continued this work of fortress building throughout Judah (2 Chron. 17:12; 27:4).

In the four centuries after the conquests of Alexander the Great, new fortresses were built throughout what would become the Roman Empire, including Herod the Great’s palace in Caesarea (Acts 23:35). The Antonia Fortress (see Acts 21:31–37; 22:24; 23:10, 16, 32) overlooked the temple area in Jerusalem and was the headquarters of the Roman army cohort stationed in the city. Herod’s palace on the western hill of Jerusalem may have been the headquarters of Roman governors of Judea, although the Antonia Fortress is also a possible location for this building (see Matt. 27:27; Mark 15:16; John 18:28, 33; 19:9).

The image of a fortress is often invoked in poetic contexts in the Bible to signify God’s unfailing protection (2 Sam. 22:2; Pss. 18:2; 31:2; 46:8; 62:2; 91:2; 144:2; Prov. 14:26; Isa. 25:4; Jer. 16:19). Prophetic denunciation of the fortresses of Israel’s enemies is common in the OT (Isa. 23:11, 13–14; Jer. 49:27; Dan. 11; Amos 1). The destruction of Israel’s own fortresses, especially Jerusalem, is also a common judgment motif in the prophets (Isa. 25:12; Jer. 6:5; 17:27; Hos. 8:14). See also Fort, Fortification.

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

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

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

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

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

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

In ancient Israel there were forts, fortification systems (forts protecting routes or borders), and fortified towns/cities. These came in all shapes and sizes (oval, rectangular, square, and rectangular with towers). The question becomes “Is it a fortified city/town, or is it a military outpost (i.e., fort/fortress)?” The answer depends on the size and location of the structure.

There are eight main Hebrew terms used in the Bible to describe a fortress or fortification. However, there is overlap in the use and translation of the terms. The NIV typically translates these words as “fortress,” “stronghold,” “refuge,” or “citadel.” Sometimes the terms are used poetically in a description of God (i.e., God is our “fortress”). The eight Hebrew terms are (1) birah—“fortress, citadel” (2 Chron. 27:4 [NIV: “forts”]; Neh. 2:8; 7:2); (2) birta’—“castle, citadel” (Aramaic word in Ezra 6:2; cf. the Akkadian term birtu, “fortress”); (3) metsurah—“fortress, stronghold” (Nah. 2:1; used with “city,” it can function as an adjective: “fortified city”); (4) misgeret—“stronghold, bulwark” (2 Sam. 22:46; Ps. 18:45; Mic. 7:17 [NIV: “den”]); (5) ma’oz—“stronghold, refuge, fortress” (Judg. 6:26 [NIV: “height”]; Prov. 10:29; Dan. 11:7, 19, 31, 38–39; Nah. 1:7); (6) metsudah—“fastness, stronghold” (1 Sam. 22:4; 2 Sam. 22:2); (7) matsor—“rampart, stronghold” (Zech. 9:3); and (8) misgab—“height, stronghold, fortress” (Pss. 59:16–17; 62:2; Jer. 48:1).

In the tenth century BC the typical smaller fortress was oval, and the larger ones were rectangular, usually with hollow casemate walls with rooms on the inside (e.g., Tel Ein el-Qudeirat, ’Ain Qadeis, and Horvat Ketef Shivta). Many of these oval forts were located in the southern Negev to protect the border and trade routes. Forts usually stood on a height overlooking a trade route, and the local water supply often was a cistern in or near the fortress. Fortresses of the ninth and tenth centuries BC were rectangular, with (and without) corner towers and solid rather than casemate walls (e.g., Tel Arad, Tel Nagila, and Khirbet Abu et-Twein). The seventh- and sixth-century BC fortresses returned to hollow casemate walls for various reasons (e.g., Horvat Radum, Deir Baghl, Tel Ein el-Qudeirat [Kadesh-Barnea]).

In ancient Israel there were forts, fortification systems (forts protecting routes or borders), and fortified towns/cities. These came in all shapes and sizes (oval, rectangular, square, and rectangular with towers). The question becomes “Is it a fortified city/town, or is it a military outpost (i.e., fort/fortress)?” The answer depends on the size and location of the structure.

There are eight main Hebrew terms used in the Bible to describe a fortress or fortification. However, there is overlap in the use and translation of the terms. The NIV typically translates these words as “fortress,” “stronghold,” “refuge,” or “citadel.” Sometimes the terms are used poetically in a description of God (i.e., God is our “fortress”). The eight Hebrew terms are (1) birah—“fortress, citadel” (2 Chron. 27:4 [NIV: “forts”]; Neh. 2:8; 7:2); (2) birta’—“castle, citadel” (Aramaic word in Ezra 6:2; cf. the Akkadian term birtu, “fortress”); (3) metsurah—“fortress, stronghold” (Nah. 2:1; used with “city,” it can function as an adjective: “fortified city”); (4) misgeret—“stronghold, bulwark” (2 Sam. 22:46; Ps. 18:45; Mic. 7:17 [NIV: “den”]); (5) ma’oz—“stronghold, refuge, fortress” (Judg. 6:26 [NIV: “height”]; Prov. 10:29; Dan. 11:7, 19, 31, 38–39; Nah. 1:7); (6) metsudah—“fastness, stronghold” (1 Sam. 22:4; 2 Sam. 22:2); (7) matsor—“rampart, stronghold” (Zech. 9:3); and (8) misgab—“height, stronghold, fortress” (Pss. 59:16–17; 62:2; Jer. 48:1).

In the tenth century BC the typical smaller fortress was oval, and the larger ones were rectangular, usually with hollow casemate walls with rooms on the inside (e.g., Tel Ein el-Qudeirat, ’Ain Qadeis, and Horvat Ketef Shivta). Many of these oval forts were located in the southern Negev to protect the border and trade routes. Forts usually stood on a height overlooking a trade route, and the local water supply often was a cistern in or near the fortress. Fortresses of the ninth and tenth centuries BC were rectangular, with (and without) corner towers and solid rather than casemate walls (e.g., Tel Arad, Tel Nagila, and Khirbet Abu et-Twein). The seventh- and sixth-century BC fortresses returned to hollow casemate walls for various reasons (e.g., Horvat Radum, Deir Baghl, Tel Ein el-Qudeirat [Kadesh-Barnea]).

An angel who first appears in the book of Daniel (8:16; 9:21). His name means “strong man of God.” Gabriel functions as the spokesperson for God to the prophet, and in particular he explains the meaning of the visions that Daniel experienced. Although not mentioned by name in Dan. 10, he is likely the angel who comes to Daniel with the aid of Michael, another angel, to inform Daniel of the meaning of the vision recounted in Dan. 11. Gabriel is also sent to Zechariah and to Mary to inform them of the significance of the births of, respectively, John (the Baptist) and Jesus (Luke 1:19, 26).

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

Old Testament

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

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

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

Intertestamental Period

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

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

New Testament

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

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

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

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

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

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