High priest from AD 18 to 36/37. He is best known for presiding over the Jewish trial of Jesus. The Bible mentions him explicitly in Matt. 26:3, 57; Luke 3:2; John 11:49; 18:13, 24, 28; Acts 4:6. Gratus, a Roman prefect of Judea, appointed Caiaphas to the office, and Vitellius, a Roman legate of Syria, removed him from it. According to John 11:49–52, he prophesied about Jesus’ death. He appears several times in the writings of Josephus, though conspicuously rarely considering the length of his tenure.

The high priest was the leader of the Levitical clan that oversaw Israel’s sacrificial system, whether directly performing sacrifices or supervising others. As no fixed terminology was set, he could also be referred to as the anointed priest, head priest, chief priest, or simply the priest. He was considered the holiest person in Israel, his position corresponding to the most holy place in the tabernacle or temple, so that he was the only one allowed behind the veil to perform sacrifices on the Day of Atonement (see Lev. 16).

The Role of the High Priest

Israel’s first high priest was Moses’ brother, Aaron, who was chosen by God and instructed in his duty. Many of the directions that he received were binding on every high priest who followed him. In addition to taking part in offering various types of sacrifices, he was required to enter the tabernacle twice daily to burn incense and tend the lamps (Exod. 30:7–8). An added responsibility may have been to place twelve loaves of bread on the table in the tabernacle each Sabbath (Lev. 24:5–8; Ezek. 44:16). Once a year, on the Day of Atonement, the high priest entered the most holy place to sprinkle the blood of a sacrificial goat on the mercy seat of the ark of the covenant, to atone for the sins of his people.

The high priest needed to be particularly careful to maintain his holy status (Lev. 21:10–15). Like other priests, he was not allowed to touch a corpse, but he alone was forbidden to enter a house where there was a dead body. He was not permitted to become unclean after the death of his mother or father or to tear his clothes as a sign of mourning. To prevent his offspring from being defiled, he was instructed to marry only a virgin of his own people.

Like all Israelite priests, the high priest was anointed for his position. This signified that he was set aside by God and empowered for his task. The high priest was distinguished from his brothers by his special clothing (Exod. 28). In addition to the linen tunic, sash, and turban worn by all priests, the high priest normally wore a breastpiece, an ephod containing the Urim and Thummim, and a robe. The breastpiece was a pouch made of blue, purple, and scarlet yarn with thin strips of gold woven into it. Attached to the ephod by four braided gold chains, the breastpiece was set with twelve stones, each of which was engraved with the name of a tribe, so that the high priest represented all of Israel before God. The Urim and Thummim were placed in the pouch, to be used by the priest when seeking special direction from God.

The ephod, made of the same material as the breastpiece, was a sleeveless garment fastened by a belt made of the same material. Two onyx stones, each engraved with the names of six of the tribes of Israel, were set in gold filigree and attached to the shoulders of the ephod. The robe, made of blue cloth and reinforced at the neck, probably was worn under the ephod. Golden bells and pomegranates alternated around its hem, the bells ringing whenever the priest entered the holy place so that he would not die. To distinguish this turban from those worn by other priests, a golden plate or rosette was attached, engraved to proclaim that the high priest was “Holy to the Lord.”

Even though the high priest usually wore distinctive clothing, on the Day of Atonement, when he entered the most holy place, he wore only a tunic, sash, undergarments, and turban, all made of linen. Evidently, the special clothes were not appropriate when atoning for the nation’s sins.

The high priest held a hereditary office originally occupied by the eldest direct descendant of Aaron’s son Eleazar. By the time of Eli, the priesthood had evidently passed to the descendants of Ithamar. During the reign of David, both Zadok, a descendant of Eleazar, and Abiathar, a descendant of Ithamar through Eli, served as priests. After David’s death, Solomon deposed Abiathar for supporting Adonijah’s attempt to become king. From this time onward, the high priesthood remained in the hands of Zadok’s descendants, until the rise of Antiochus Epiphanes, who sold the high priesthood to the highest bidder, no matter what his genealogical connections.

The death of a high priest was of national significance, as it marked the beginning of the tenure of a new high priest, who received his father’s special clothing. It also gave anyone who had fled to one of the six cities of refuge for unintentionally killing someone the opportunity to return home (Num. 35:25–28). Later rabbis concluded that the high priest’s death in some way atoned for those who committed manslaughter.

The High Priest and Political Leaders

From the period of the first temple a close link was established between the high priest and the king. Both were anointed to serve respectively as Israel’s chief spiritual leader and political leader. Kings often exerted their authority over high priests. Thus, Solomon promoted Zadok and deposed Abiathar. Similarly, King Joash instructed Jehoiada to repair the temple. It was also possible for a high priest to oppose or endorse a ruler. Thus, Jehoiada both deposed Athaliah and crowned Joash as king (2 Kings 11). The chief priest Azariah drove Uzziah out of the temple when he attempted to burn incense on his own (2 Chron. 26:16–20). At the end of the kingdom period, when King Zedekiah was taken captive to Babylon, the high priest Seraiah, along with his chief associates, also were taken into exile, where they were executed (2 Kings 25:18–21).

After the exile, when Israel had no king, the high priests gained additional political significance. During the Hasmonean period, the offices of high priest and king were sometimes united in one person. Herod the Great, in Roman times, elevated and deposed high priests at will. After his death and his son’s removal from office, high priests were appointed by the Roman governors and functioned as the Jews’ main liaison with Roman officials.

The Priesthood and the Early Church

In the first century AD, the high priest was the chief social and religious leader among the Jews, presiding over the Sanhedrin, the Jewish council that tried cases concerning Jewish laws. The Greek word used in the NT for “high priest,” archiereus, often appears in the plural, “chief priests,” to include current or former high priests and members of the priestly aristocracy. Luke refers to Sceva, whose seven sons attempted to cast out demons in the way Paul did, as a high priest. Since no list of high priests contains Sceva’s name, he may have been simply a member of a priestly family or personally used the term to boost his religious standing (Acts 19:13–14). After the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, the office of high priest disappeared entirely.

The chief priests, in association with the Sanhedrin, scribes, and/or elders, often opposed Jesus’ ministry. The final official rejection of Jesus came when the high priest Caiaphas proclaimed that one man should die so that the nation might not perish. By this proclamation, he unwittingly “prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation” and for other children of God, thus uniting them (John 11:49–52). Caiaphas later personally interrogated Jesus about his status as the Messiah and proclaimed him guilty of blasphemy (Mark 14:60–64).

After the resurrection, high priests joined the wider priestly opposition to the apostles. Thus, the high priest was present when the decision was made to silence Peter and John for proclaiming that the crippled beggar had been healed by the power of Jesus (Acts 4:1–20). He also took part in their subsequent arrest and questioning (5:17–28). The high priest questioned Stephen over charges that he blasphemed and spoke against the temple and Mosaic law (6:11–7:1). Paul, before his experience of the risen Christ, received letters of authority from the high priest to arrest Christians (9:1–2). Paul later stood trial before the high priest Ananias, who also brought charges against him to Felix (24:1), and then was charged before Festus by a wider group of chief priests (25:1–3).

The Priesthood of Jesus in Hebrews

Although other NT books imply that Jesus had a priestly ministry, the book of Hebrews alone develops the idea that Jesus not only has the right to serve as priest but also is the great high priest who replaces the OT priesthood. It is therefore incumbent upon all to follow Christ, as there is no other way to be forgiven of sin and come into fellowship with the Father. The book shows this in a number of ways, chiefly in chapters 5–10. As a descendant of Judah, Jesus did not qualify to serve as a priest under the Aaronic order. Hebrews therefore demonstrates that his service as a priest in the order of Melchizedek far surpasses the Aaronic priesthood (5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:17). Since Melchizedek is greater than Abraham, as seen by the patriarch bringing tithes to the priest, and since Levi, as a descendant of Abraham, in effect paid tithes through his ancestor, Jesus—as a member of a greater priesthood—is greater than the Aaronic priests (7:4–10). For Jesus to serve as high priest, he had to be “like his brothers in every way” (2:17). This required that he share in their humanity by taking on flesh and blood, learning to trust God completely in life, and dying (2:14). It also meant that he would be tempted in every way humans are so that he could sympathize with them (2:18). However, since he never succumbed to temptation, he could rescue people from their sin.

Although no one chooses to become a priest, Aaron’s descendants inherited their role, whereas Jesus was designated as priest by God with an oath (Heb. 5:10; 7:21; cf. Ps. 110:4). That God did not swear that Aaron’s line would always be priests implies that a change was possible. Since Jesus received his priesthood by an oath, his priesthood is greater than the Aaronic priesthood, becomes the guarantee of the better covenant spoken of in Jer. 31, and will never be forfeited.

The OT priests presented repeated offerings, and so their work could not definitively deal with the problem of sin. The sacrifices of the Aaronic priests needed to be repeated regularly, whereas the sacrifice of Jesus did not have to be repeated. Similarly, Aaronic priests needed to offer sacrifices for their own sins before they could aid others. Since Jesus never sinned, he had no such limitation. What the priests had to do for themselves daily (Heb. 7:27), and for the nation once a year, Christ did once for all (7:27; 9:26, 28; 10:10, 12, 14, 18).

The Levitical priesthood could continue only as new priests replaced those who retired or died, but Jesus’ priesthood is eternal because of his eternal life. Melchizedek is used to illustrate how this can be. But while Melchizedek remains a priest forever simply because the Bible does not record his genealogy or his death, Jesus has a permanent priesthood because he lives forever and because of the oath quoted from Ps. 110:4: “The Lord has sworn: . . . ‘You are a priest forever’ ” (Heb. 5:6; cf. 6:20; 7:3, 17; 21).

Not only is Jesus a greater priest, but also he presented a greater sacrifice at a greater, heavenly sanctuary. The Aaronic priests served only at a copy of this true heavenly tabernacle, which was erected by God himself (Heb. 8:2). Jesus presented not the blood of animals, which needed to be offered over and over, but rather the perfect sacrifice of himself, ensuring that no other sacrifice is needed. After becoming a sacrifice, he returned to the heavenly sanctuary, where he appears forever at the right hand of God as king and mediator. Due to Christ’s work, the most holy place is no longer barred to all but the high priest once a year. Rather, the curtain has been opened so that all his people can boldly draw near to the Father. Similarly, Christ’s priestly work ensures that those who follow him can be effectively forgiven, purified, sanctified, and perfected.

In the NT, “Jews” (Ioudaioi) is an ethnic and religious term to describe the people of Judah. In Jesus’ day, Jews were distinguished from Samaritans (John 4:9, 22). Gradually the term began to be used more in a religious than in an ethnic sense, and it has come to represent the descendants from Abraham as a whole and religious converts who regard the Mosaic law and customs as the inalienable religious foundation for faith and practices (Mark 7:3; John 2:6).

The Gospels

In the Synoptic Gospels the term “Jews” is used largely in the phrase “the king of the Jews” with reference to Jesus (Matt. 2:2; 27:11, 29; Mark 15:2, 9, 12, 18; Luke 23:3, 37). Born as the king of the Jews, Jesus claimed to have come to fulfill the law of Moses instead of abolishing it (Matt. 5:17). He emphasized the importance of practicing the law in obedience (Matt. 7:24–27), and he rebuked the Pharisees and the scribes for teaching the law without carrying it out (Matt. 23). They opposed him, not only because they rejected his claim to be the Messiah, but also because they viewed his teaching and practices as destabilizing their religious status quo (Matt. 12:1–8; John 5:10; 11:48).

The Jews are represented in the Gospels by both the upper class (e.g., Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes, chief priests) and the lower classes (the crowds). Usually the religious upper class would not accept Jesus’ teaching and challenged him by asking questions or denying his authority (Matt. 15:1; 16:1). The crowds generally accepted Jesus’ teaching and experienced his power to heal and other benefits. The Synoptic account of the opposition by the upper class is contrasted with the widespread opposition to Jesus by the “Jews” in general in John’s Gospel. But Matthew and Luke also highlight Jesus’ lament of the unrepentant Jewish cities (Matt. 11:20–24; Luke 10:12–15), indicating that resistance to Jesus’ teaching was a common phenomenon among the Jews.

Jesus responded to the unbelieving Jews with strong rebuke and condemnation (Matt. 12:30–32; 21:33–46). When Jesus healed a servant of a Roman centurion and marveled at the amazing faith of this Gentile (8:5–13), Jesus predicted that “the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness” because of unbelief, whereas the Gentiles will come to eat with Abraham in the kingdom of heaven (8:11–12). In spite of the unbelief of the Jews, the privilege to hear the gospel was given to them first. Jesus sent out the twelve disciples, instructing them that they should not go anywhere among the Gentiles or enter the towns of the Samaritans, but instead go “to the lost sheep of Israel” (Matt. 10:6 [cf. Rom. 1:16]).

The term “Jews” occurs only four times in the Synoptics outside the phrase “king of the Jews,” but seventy-one times in the Gospel of John. John uses the term especially as a technical one for those Jews who were hostile to Jesus and his followers. Whereas the Synoptics focus on the Jewish leaders’ rejection of Jesus’ messianic actions, John focuses on their rejection of his teaching that he is the Son of God in unique relationship with the Father. Jesus in John is not only the “one and only” (monogenēs) of God (1:18), but also the fulfiller of what the temple signifies and all the Jewish tradition and customs represent. John thus describes the Jewish opposition to Jesus as much more widespread and intense than that in the Synoptics, presenting the Jews as opposing Jesus’ teaching because of their loyalty to Jewish tradition (5:15–18; 6:41; 7:1–2, 13; 8:31–57; 9:22; 10:31–33; 19:7–12, 38; 20:19).

Acts and the Pauline Letters

In the book of Acts the term “Jews” (eighty-one occurrences) is used especially with reference to the Jewish people who oppose Paul’s law-free gospel (9:23; 13:45, 50; 14:2, 4; 17:5; 18:12, 14; 20:3; 21:11; 22:30; 23:12; 24:9).

In his letters, Paul refers to “Jews” primarily in an ethnic and religious sense without connoting that they have theological antagonism against the gospel. The Jews are thus contrasted with the Gentiles in that they are “the people of Israel”: “Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises” (Rom. 9:4). While Paul acknowledges the continuity of Jewish identity through their lineage from Abraham, he distinguishes true Jews from false Jews in terms of Jesus’ accomplishment of redemption. Paul says, “A person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code” (2:29). This distinction of true Jews from false Jews resonates with his distinction of true Israel from false Israel (9:6). The redefinition of the group of spiritual Israelites is the result of Jesus’ death and resurrection according to the OT prophecies. Those who believe in Jesus are reckoned as “children of Abraham” according to the gospel announced in Gen. 12:3 (Gal. 3:7–8).

Paul’s presentation of spiritual Jews is foreseen in Jesus’ statement that the Jews who do not believe in him are not Abraham’s children but rather the children of the devil (John 8:30–44). In 1 John the children of God are defined in terms of love rather than ethnic lineage (3:10). According to the book of Revelation, those “who say they are Jews” are not, but are a “synagogue of Satan” (2:9; 3:9). These passages show that salvation is obtained through faith in Jesus rather than through the ethnic lineage of Abraham and observances of the Mosaic law (Rom. 3:20–28).

These polemics against the Jews and Jewish law do not necessarily make the NT teachings anti-Semitic or anti-Judaic. What the NT polemicizes is neither the Jewish nation nor Judaism but rather the unbelief of the Jews who rejected Jesus, inasmuch as Jesus is the Messiah, who has come in flesh and fulfilled the prophecies of the OT.

In the NT, “Jews” (Ioudaioi) is an ethnic and religious term to describe the people of Judah. In Jesus’ day, Jews were distinguished from Samaritans (John 4:9, 22). Gradually the term began to be used more in a religious than in an ethnic sense, and it has come to represent the descendants from Abraham as a whole and religious converts who regard the Mosaic law and customs as the inalienable religious foundation for faith and practices (Mark 7:3; John 2:6).

The Gospels

In the Synoptic Gospels the term “Jews” is used largely in the phrase “the king of the Jews” with reference to Jesus (Matt. 2:2; 27:11, 29; Mark 15:2, 9, 12, 18; Luke 23:3, 37). Born as the king of the Jews, Jesus claimed to have come to fulfill the law of Moses instead of abolishing it (Matt. 5:17). He emphasized the importance of practicing the law in obedience (Matt. 7:24–27), and he rebuked the Pharisees and the scribes for teaching the law without carrying it out (Matt. 23). They opposed him, not only because they rejected his claim to be the Messiah, but also because they viewed his teaching and practices as destabilizing their religious status quo (Matt. 12:1–8; John 5:10; 11:48).

The Jews are represented in the Gospels by both the upper class (e.g., Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes, chief priests) and the lower classes (the crowds). Usually the religious upper class would not accept Jesus’ teaching and challenged him by asking questions or denying his authority (Matt. 15:1; 16:1). The crowds generally accepted Jesus’ teaching and experienced his power to heal and other benefits. The Synoptic account of the opposition by the upper class is contrasted with the widespread opposition to Jesus by the “Jews” in general in John’s Gospel. But Matthew and Luke also highlight Jesus’ lament of the unrepentant Jewish cities (Matt. 11:20–24; Luke 10:12–15), indicating that resistance to Jesus’ teaching was a common phenomenon among the Jews.

Jesus responded to the unbelieving Jews with strong rebuke and condemnation (Matt. 12:30–32; 21:33–46). When Jesus healed a servant of a Roman centurion and marveled at the amazing faith of this Gentile (8:5–13), Jesus predicted that “the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness” because of unbelief, whereas the Gentiles will come to eat with Abraham in the kingdom of heaven (8:11–12). In spite of the unbelief of the Jews, the privilege to hear the gospel was given to them first. Jesus sent out the twelve disciples, instructing them that they should not go anywhere among the Gentiles or enter the towns of the Samaritans, but instead go “to the lost sheep of Israel” (Matt. 10:6 [cf. Rom. 1:16]).

The term “Jews” occurs only four times in the Synoptics outside the phrase “king of the Jews,” but seventy-one times in the Gospel of John. John uses the term especially as a technical one for those Jews who were hostile to Jesus and his followers. Whereas the Synoptics focus on the Jewish leaders’ rejection of Jesus’ messianic actions, John focuses on their rejection of his teaching that he is the Son of God in unique relationship with the Father. Jesus in John is not only the “one and only” (monogenēs) of God (1:18), but also the fulfiller of what the temple signifies and all the Jewish tradition and customs represent. John thus describes the Jewish opposition to Jesus as much more widespread and intense than that in the Synoptics, presenting the Jews as opposing Jesus’ teaching because of their loyalty to Jewish tradition (5:15–18; 6:41; 7:1–2, 13; 8:31–57; 9:22; 10:31–33; 19:7–12, 38; 20:19).

Acts and the Pauline Letters

In the book of Acts the term “Jews” (eighty-one occurrences) is used especially with reference to the Jewish people who oppose Paul’s law-free gospel (9:23; 13:45, 50; 14:2, 4; 17:5; 18:12, 14; 20:3; 21:11; 22:30; 23:12; 24:9).

In his letters, Paul refers to “Jews” primarily in an ethnic and religious sense without connoting that they have theological antagonism against the gospel. The Jews are thus contrasted with the Gentiles in that they are “the people of Israel”: “Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises” (Rom. 9:4). While Paul acknowledges the continuity of Jewish identity through their lineage from Abraham, he distinguishes true Jews from false Jews in terms of Jesus’ accomplishment of redemption. Paul says, “A person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code” (2:29). This distinction of true Jews from false Jews resonates with his distinction of true Israel from false Israel (9:6). The redefinition of the group of spiritual Israelites is the result of Jesus’ death and resurrection according to the OT prophecies. Those who believe in Jesus are reckoned as “children of Abraham” according to the gospel announced in Gen. 12:3 (Gal. 3:7–8).

Paul’s presentation of spiritual Jews is foreseen in Jesus’ statement that the Jews who do not believe in him are not Abraham’s children but rather the children of the devil (John 8:30–44). In 1 John the children of God are defined in terms of love rather than ethnic lineage (3:10). According to the book of Revelation, those “who say they are Jews” are not, but are a “synagogue of Satan” (2:9; 3:9). These passages show that salvation is obtained through faith in Jesus rather than through the ethnic lineage of Abraham and observances of the Mosaic law (Rom. 3:20–28).

These polemics against the Jews and Jewish law do not necessarily make the NT teachings anti-Semitic or anti-Judaic. What the NT polemicizes is neither the Jewish nation nor Judaism but rather the unbelief of the Jews who rejected Jesus, inasmuch as Jesus is the Messiah, who has come in flesh and fulfilled the prophecies of the OT.

The Jewish ruling body in Jerusalem that played a part in Jesus’ execution and the persecution of the early church. The Greek word for this body, synedrion, often is translated as “council,” and in ancient sources other than the Bible the word does not denote one specific ruling authority but rather is used for many different city or regional councils. However, in the NT the word refers to the council in Jerusalem headed by the high priest that was charged by the Roman authorities with maintaining order among the Jewish people. According to Jewish tradition, Moses instituted the Sanhedrin at God’s prompting, so that its members might lead the nation as God’s anointed elders (see Num. 11:16–17). Further tradition says that Ezra called the Sanhedrin together again following the exile.

In the first century AD, the Sanhedrin functioned as the highest judicial authority of the nation of Israel (which sheds light on Matt. 5:22). The Sanhedrin contained members from the Sadducees and the Pharisees, along with other prominent members of the Jewish establishment. In the Gospel of Mark it is described as being made up of “the high priest, and all the chief priests, the elders and the teachers of the law” (Mark 14:53). As the highest authority representing the religious establishment of Israel, the Sanhedrin under the high priest Caiaphas played a prominent role in the final conflict that led to Jesus’ crucifixion. John indicates that the Sanhedrin, and Caiaphas in particular, plotted to kill Jesus just after the raising of Lazarus from the dead (John 11:45–53). Caiaphas expressed the fear that the Sanhedrin’s authority would be usurped if Jesus continued to gain popularity through his miracles, and also that a messiah would trigger a backlash of oppression from the Roman rulers.

After Jesus was taken from the garden of Gethsemane, the Sanhedrin tried him on a charge of blasphemy using false testimony, and some of the Gospels also have the accusers claim that Jesus promised to destroy the temple and raise it in three days, taking his words as a literal threat against the temple (Matt. 26:58–68; Mark 14:53–65; Luke 22:63–71; see also John 18:13–27). The Sanhedrin was unable to carry out a sentence of death that the charge of blasphemy called for, however, and so they were forced to bring Jesus to the Roman authorities to achieve their desired result. When Jesus was brought before Pilate, they portrayed his crime as proclaiming himself to be the “King of the Jews,” thereby tailoring the charge to make him look like a revolutionary rather than a religious teacher with whom the Sanhedrin disagreed (Matt. 27:11–14; Mark 15:2–5; Luke 23:2–7; John 18:29–38). The man who arranged for the burial of Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea, is said to be a member of “the Council” (Mark 15:43), but Luke is quick to mention that Joseph had “not consented to their decision or action” regarding Jesus’ fate (Luke 23:51).

Following the death and resurrection of Jesus, the Sanhedrin attempted to suppress the budding Christian movement by arresting Peter and John and having them beaten for preaching about Jesus (Acts 4:1–21). The Sanhedrin also ordered the apostles “not to speak in the name of Jesus” (5:40). Paul, after being arrested, was brought before the Sanhedrin so that they might determine his crime, and he cleverly used the disagreement between the Sadducees and the Pharisees regarding the resurrection of the dead to disrupt the assembly (23:1–9). They then plotted to kill him (23:12–22).

A broad designation for certain regions in Israel, typically rocky, although also plains, with little rainfall. These areas generally are uninhabited, and most often “wilderness” refers to specific regions surrounding inhabited Israel. A fair amount of Scripture’s focus with respect to the wilderness concerns Israel’s forty-year period of wandering in the wilderness after the exodus (see also Wilderness Wandering).

Geography

More specifically, the geographical locations designated “wilderness” fall into four basic categories: the Negev (south), Transjordan (east), Judean (eastern slope of Judean mountains), and Sinai (southwest).

The Negev makes up a fair amount of Israel’s southern kingdom, Judah. It is very rocky and also includes plateaus and wadis, which are dry riverbeds that can bloom after rains. Its most important city is Beersheba (see Gen. 21:14, 22–34), which often designates Israel’s southernmost border, as in the expression “from Dan to Beersheba” (e.g., 2 Sam. 17:11).

Transjordan pertains to the area east of the Jordan River, the area through which the Israelites had to pass before crossing the Jordan on their way from Mount Sinai to Canaan. (Israel was denied direct passage to Canaan by the Edomites and Amorites [see Num. 20:14–21; 21:21–26]). Even though this region lay outside the promised land of Canaan, it was settled by the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh after they had fulfilled God’s command to fight alongside the other tribes in conquering Canaan (Num. 32:1–42; Josh. 13:8; 22:1–34).

The Judean Desert is located on the eastern slopes of the Judean mountains, toward the Dead Sea. David fled there for refuge from Saul (1 Sam. 21–23). It was also in this area that Jesus was tempted (Luke 4:1–13).

The Sinai Desert is a large peninsula, with the modern-day Gulf of Suez to the west and the Gulf of Aqaba to the east. In the ancient Near Eastern world, both bodies of water often were referred to as the “Red Sea,” which is the larger sea to the south. In addition to the region traditionally believed to contain the location of Mount Sinai (its exact location is unknown), the Sinai Desert is further subdivided into other areas known to readers of the OT: Desert of Zin (northeast, contains Kadesh Barnea), Desert of Shur (northwest, near Egypt), Desert of Paran (central).

Wilderness in the Bible

Wilderness is commonly mentioned in the Bible, and although it certainly can have neutral connotations (i.e., simply describing a location), the uninhabited places often entail both positive (e.g., as a place of solitude) and negative (e.g., as a place of wrath) connotations, both in their actual geological properties and as metaphors. The very rugged and uninhabited nature of the wilderness easily lent itself to being a place of death (e.g., Deut. 8:15; Ps. 107:4–5; Jer. 2:6). It was also a place associated with Israel’s rebellions and struggles with other nations. Upon leaving Egypt, Israel spent forty years wandering the wilderness before entering Canaan, encountering numerous military conflicts along the way. This forty-year period was occasioned by a mass rebellion (Num. 14), hence casting a necessarily dark cloud over that entire period, and no doubt firming up subsequent negative connotations of “wilderness.” Similarly, “wilderness” connotes notions of exile from Israel, as seen in the ritual of the scapegoat (lit., “goat of removal” [see Lev. 16]). On the Day of Atonement, one goat was sacrificed to atone for the people’s sin, and another was sent off, likewise to atone for sin. The scapegoat was released into the desert, where it would encounter certain death, either by succumbing to the climate or through wild animals.

On the other hand, it is precisely in this uninhabited land that God also showed his faithfulness to his people, despite their prolonged punishment. He miraculously supplied bread (manna) and meat (quail) (Exod. 16; Num. 11), as well as water (Exod. 15:22–27; 17:1–7; Num. 20:1–13; 21:16–20). God’s care for Israel is amply summarized in Deut. 1:30–31: “The Lord your God, who is going before you, will fight for you, as he did for you in Egypt, before your very eyes, and in the wilderness. There you saw how the Lord your God carried you, as a father carries his son, all the way you went until you reached this place.”

The harsh realities of the wilderness also made it an ideal place to seek sanctuary and protection. David fled from Saul to the wilderness, the Desert of Ziph (1 Sam. 23:14; 26:2–3; cf. Ps. 55:7). Similarly, Jeremiah sought a retreat in the desert from sinful Israel (Jer. 9:2).

Related somewhat to this last point is Jesus’ own attitude toward the wilderness. It was there that he retreated when he could no longer move about publicly (John 11:54). John the Baptist came from the wilderness announcing Jesus’ ministry (Matt. 3:1–3; Mark 1:2–4; Luke 3:2–6; John 1:23; cf. Isa. 40:3–5). It was also in the desert that Jesus went to be tempted but also overcame that temptation.

The voluntary process of granting the rights, privileges, responsibilities, and status of child or heir to an individual or group that was not originally born to the adopter. While birth occurs naturally, adoption occurs only through the exertion of will.

At least two significant figures in the OT were adopted. After Moses’ birth mother kept him alive despite Pharaoh’s command to drown every newborn Hebrew boy in the Nile (Exod. 1:22), Moses was, ironically, adopted by Pharaoh’s daughter (2:10). Esther, or Hadassah, was adopted by her uncle (or cousin) Mordecai upon the death of her parents (Esther 2:7)—this adoption plays an important part in Esther’s ability to prevent the Jewish extermination intended by Haman.

Although adoption is fairly uncommon in the OT, God’s adoption of Israel is of the utmost importance. It demonstrates God’s willingness to initiate relationship with humankind, a truth that later culminated in Jesus Christ. God chooses to adopt the nation of Israel as his child (Deut. 7:6; Isa. 1:2; Hos. 11:1) and more significantly as his firstborn son (Exod. 4:22; Jer. 31:9). Thus God singles out Israel among the nations of the earth, bestowing the highest possible honor.

The concept of adoption is more prevalent in the NT, primarily in the apostle Paul’s writings. Based on the belief that Israel’s exclusive position as the adopted firstborn son of God the Father is no longer deserved, the NT includes those who believe in Jesus Christ as adopted children of God’s eternal family (John 1:12; 11:52; Gal. 4:5; Eph. 1:5; Phil. 2:15; 1 John 3:1). The adopted children of God enjoy all the rights of a natural-born child, including the opportunity to call God “Father,” as Jesus did (e.g., Matt. 5:16; Luke 12:32). Paul in particular uses adoption to describe the Christian’s new relationship with God through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ (Rom. 8:15–16, 21–23; 9:25–26).

Bible Texts and Versions The NT and the OT have considerably different but partially overlapping textual histories. For clarity, it is best to begin with a survey of the NT manuscripts and versions.

Greek texts. Although no autographs of the NT books survive, there exist more than five thousand Greek texts covering anywhere from a portion of a few verses up to the complete NT. Traditionally, these texts have been classified into five groups: papyri, uncials, minuscules, lectionaries, and quotations in patristic texts. The most important manuscripts are listed below.

The earliest texts of the NT are those written on papyrus. Ninety-eight of these manuscripts have been identified, and they are represented by a “P” with a numerical superscript. The earliest of these papyri is P52, which contains parts of four verses in John 18 and dates to the early second century. For substantial portions of the NT text, the most important papyri are found in the Chester Beatty and Bodmer collections. P45, P46, and P47, all from the Chester Beatty collection, are from the third century and contain large sections of the four Gospels, eight of the Pauline Epistles, Hebrews, and Revelation. Within the Bodmer collection in Geneva are four very important codices. P66 dates to around AD 200 and preserves most of the Gospel of John. P72 dates to the third century and contains the earliest copies of 1–2 Peter and Jude, which are preserved in their entirety, as well as Greek translations of Pss. 33–34. P74 dates to the seventh century and contains portions of Acts, James, 1–2 Peter, 1–3 John, and Jude. Finally, P75, which dates to the early third century, contains most of Luke and John 1–15. It is the oldest extant copy of Luke. Among the remaining papyri, forty-three have been dated to the early fourth century or before.

The second category of manuscripts is the uncials, which usually were written on parchment and span the fourth through the tenth centuries. About 270 uncials are known, and they range from a few verses up to complete copies of the NT or even the entire Bible. Uncials originally were denoted by capital letters, but when the number of manuscripts grew beyond these limits, a new system was employed whereby each manuscript was given a number always beginning with zero. However, the most important uncials are still usually known by their letter. Among the most important uncials are the following five manuscripts. Codex Sinaiticus (designated by the Hebrew letter à) dates to the fourth century and is the only uncial that contains the entire NT. It also has almost all of the OT as well as the early Christian writings the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. Dating from the fifth century, Codex Alexandrinus (designated as A) contains the OT, most of the NT—lacking only portions of Matthew, John, and 2 Corinthians—and 1–2 Clement. Along with Sinaiticus, the most important uncial is Codex Vaticanus (designated as B), which dates to the fourth century. It contains almost all of the OT and the complete NT, except for substantial portions between Hebrews and Revelation. It has been in the Vatican’s library for over five hundred years. The fourth important uncial is Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (designated as D), which contains Greek and Latin copies of the four Gospels, most of Acts, and a few verses from 3 John. It dates from the late fourth or early fifth century. The fifth important uncial is Codex Washingtonianus (designated as W), which dates to the early fifth century and contains virtually all of the four Gospels.

The third category of NT manuscripts is minuscules. These texts date from the ninth century and later and comprise approximately 2,800 manuscripts, which are denoted by a number not beginning with zero. Among the more important minuscules are Codex 1, Codex 13, and Codex 33, which, along with their relatives, are considered reliable witnesses to early families of texts such as the Caesarean (1) or the Alexandrian (33). Codex 13 and its relatives are noteworthy for having the story of the adulterous woman at the end of Luke 21 instead of in John 8. The final two groups of NT manuscripts, the lectionaries and quotations in patristic sources, are not manuscripts in the strict sense of the term, but their use of portions of the NT presents important witnesses for the practice of textual criticism.

Versions. With the spread of Christianity during the time of the Roman Empire, the NT was translated into the language of the native peoples. These versions of the NT are important both for textual criticism of the NT and for the interpretive decisions that are reflected in how the text was rendered into a new language. Among the most important early versions of the NT are the following.

As Latin began to displace Greek as the dominant language of the empire, there was a need for a Latin version of the Bible. The earliest translation, known as the Old Latin or Itala, was made probably in the late second century, though the oldest manuscript (Codex Vercellensis) is from the fourth century. With the proliferation of Latin texts a standardized Latin translation became desirable, and in AD 382 Jerome was commissioned by Pope Damasus to provide a new translation known as the Vulgate.

Another family of NT versions is the Syriac texts. Around the late second century the four Gospels were translated into a version known as the Old Syriac. It is extant in two incomplete manuscripts that are probably fifth century. The translation that became the standard Syriac text is the Peshitta, which was produced in the early fifth century. It does not contain 2 Peter, 2–3 John, Jude, or Revelation because these were not considered canonical among the Syriac churches.

Other important versions of the NT from antiquity are the Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, and Ethiopic translations.

Old Testament

Hebrew texts. The text that has served as the basis for most modern editions and translations of the Hebrew OT is the Masoretic Text (MT), named after the Masoretes, the Jewish scribes who transmitted the text and added vocalization, accentuation, and notes to the consonantal text. The most important Masoretic manuscripts date from the end of the ninth century to the early eleventh century. Notable among these is the Leningrad Codex (AD 1008), denoted as L, which is the earliest Masoretic manuscript of the entire OT. Also important are the Aleppo Codex (c. AD 925), denoted as A, which preserves all of the OT except for most of the Pentateuch; the British Museum MS Or. 4445 (c. AD 925), denoted as B, which contains most of the Pentateuch; and the Cairo Codex (c. AD 896), denoted C, which contains Joshua through Kings and also the Prophets.

Although these manuscripts are much later than the biblical period, their reliability was largely confirmed with the discovery of the DSS beginning in 1947. Among the Qumran library are many manuscripts of biblical books as well as biblical commentaries, apocrphyal and pseudepigraphal works, and sectarian literature. All the OT books are represented among the scrolls that were found except Esther and Nehemiah, though the latter is usually presumed to have been at the end of Ezra but has not survived. The books with the most manuscripts are, in order, Psalms, Deuteronomy, and Isaiah. One of the striking characteristics of these scrolls is that they reflect a diversity of text types. For example, there is a copy of Jeremiah that is close to the Masoretic version, but also a manuscript of Jeremiah similar to the much shorter version found in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT).

Another Hebrew text of the OT is that of the Samaritan Pentateuch, which is the text transmitted by the Samaritans. It is similar to the MT in some respects but also has differences that reflect theological interests. The main manuscripts for the Samaritan Pentateuch are from the twelfth century.

Versions. Between the third and first centuries BC, the entire OT was translated into Greek. This version, known as the Septuagint (designated by the abbreviation LXX), became the main version of the OT used by the early church. Due to its adoption by the church, the LXX has been preserved in numerous manuscripts, including Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Vaticanus. By the late first century BC or early first century AD, there were two revisions of the Greek text: the Proto-Lucianic version and the Kaige recension. The latter aimed to revise the Greek toward closer conformity with the Hebrew text and derives its name from its peculiar tendency to translate the Hebrew word gam (“also”) with the Greek work kaige. In the second century AD three other Greek translations were made by Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus, all of which revised the Kaige recension back toward the MT.

Another important early version of the OT consists of the Targumim, which are Aramaic translations or paraphrases (and sometimes extensive elaborations) of OT books. The official Targumim for Judaism are Targum Onqelos for the Pentateuch (c. second century AD), which is quite literal, and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan for the Prophets (sometime before the fourth century AD), which ranges from being quite literal to somewhat paraphrastic. Unofficial Targumim for the Pentateuch include Targum Neofiti and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. There are also various unofficial Targumim for the Writings section of the OT, except for Daniel and Ezra-Nehemiah (which are already written partly in Aramaic).

Besides the Greek and Aramaic translations, there are other important versions of the OT. Sometime in either the third or fourth century AD, the Peshitta of the OT was produced, though there is evidence that there were earlier Syriac translations of some books already circulating. Also important is a group of Latin translations known collectively as the Old Latin. These versions were produced sometime during the second century AD and were primarily made from already existing Greek translations rather than Hebrew texts. As with the NT, a later Latin translation was made by Jerome for the Vulgate.

Bible Texts and Versions The NT and the OT have considerably different but partially overlapping textual histories. For clarity, it is best to begin with a survey of the NT manuscripts and versions.

Greek texts. Although no autographs of the NT books survive, there exist more than five thousand Greek texts covering anywhere from a portion of a few verses up to the complete NT. Traditionally, these texts have been classified into five groups: papyri, uncials, minuscules, lectionaries, and quotations in patristic texts. The most important manuscripts are listed below.

The earliest texts of the NT are those written on papyrus. Ninety-eight of these manuscripts have been identified, and they are represented by a “P” with a numerical superscript. The earliest of these papyri is P52, which contains parts of four verses in John 18 and dates to the early second century. For substantial portions of the NT text, the most important papyri are found in the Chester Beatty and Bodmer collections. P45, P46, and P47, all from the Chester Beatty collection, are from the third century and contain large sections of the four Gospels, eight of the Pauline Epistles, Hebrews, and Revelation. Within the Bodmer collection in Geneva are four very important codices. P66 dates to around AD 200 and preserves most of the Gospel of John. P72 dates to the third century and contains the earliest copies of 1–2 Peter and Jude, which are preserved in their entirety, as well as Greek translations of Pss. 33–34. P74 dates to the seventh century and contains portions of Acts, James, 1–2 Peter, 1–3 John, and Jude. Finally, P75, which dates to the early third century, contains most of Luke and John 1–15. It is the oldest extant copy of Luke. Among the remaining papyri, forty-three have been dated to the early fourth century or before.

The second category of manuscripts is the uncials, which usually were written on parchment and span the fourth through the tenth centuries. About 270 uncials are known, and they range from a few verses up to complete copies of the NT or even the entire Bible. Uncials originally were denoted by capital letters, but when the number of manuscripts grew beyond these limits, a new system was employed whereby each manuscript was given a number always beginning with zero. However, the most important uncials are still usually known by their letter. Among the most important uncials are the following five manuscripts. Codex Sinaiticus (designated by the Hebrew letter à) dates to the fourth century and is the only uncial that contains the entire NT. It also has almost all of the OT as well as the early Christian writings the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. Dating from the fifth century, Codex Alexandrinus (designated as A) contains the OT, most of the NT—lacking only portions of Matthew, John, and 2 Corinthians—and 1–2 Clement. Along with Sinaiticus, the most important uncial is Codex Vaticanus (designated as B), which dates to the fourth century. It contains almost all of the OT and the complete NT, except for substantial portions between Hebrews and Revelation. It has been in the Vatican’s library for over five hundred years. The fourth important uncial is Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (designated as D), which contains Greek and Latin copies of the four Gospels, most of Acts, and a few verses from 3 John. It dates from the late fourth or early fifth century. The fifth important uncial is Codex Washingtonianus (designated as W), which dates to the early fifth century and contains virtually all of the four Gospels.

The third category of NT manuscripts is minuscules. These texts date from the ninth century and later and comprise approximately 2,800 manuscripts, which are denoted by a number not beginning with zero. Among the more important minuscules are Codex 1, Codex 13, and Codex 33, which, along with their relatives, are considered reliable witnesses to early families of texts such as the Caesarean (1) or the Alexandrian (33). Codex 13 and its relatives are noteworthy for having the story of the adulterous woman at the end of Luke 21 instead of in John 8. The final two groups of NT manuscripts, the lectionaries and quotations in patristic sources, are not manuscripts in the strict sense of the term, but their use of portions of the NT presents important witnesses for the practice of textual criticism.

Versions. With the spread of Christianity during the time of the Roman Empire, the NT was translated into the language of the native peoples. These versions of the NT are important both for textual criticism of the NT and for the interpretive decisions that are reflected in how the text was rendered into a new language. Among the most important early versions of the NT are the following.

As Latin began to displace Greek as the dominant language of the empire, there was a need for a Latin version of the Bible. The earliest translation, known as the Old Latin or Itala, was made probably in the late second century, though the oldest manuscript (Codex Vercellensis) is from the fourth century. With the proliferation of Latin texts a standardized Latin translation became desirable, and in AD 382 Jerome was commissioned by Pope Damasus to provide a new translation known as the Vulgate.

Another family of NT versions is the Syriac texts. Around the late second century the four Gospels were translated into a version known as the Old Syriac. It is extant in two incomplete manuscripts that are probably fifth century. The translation that became the standard Syriac text is the Peshitta, which was produced in the early fifth century. It does not contain 2 Peter, 2–3 John, Jude, or Revelation because these were not considered canonical among the Syriac churches.

Other important versions of the NT from antiquity are the Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, and Ethiopic translations.

Old Testament

Hebrew texts. The text that has served as the basis for most modern editions and translations of the Hebrew OT is the Masoretic Text (MT), named after the Masoretes, the Jewish scribes who transmitted the text and added vocalization, accentuation, and notes to the consonantal text. The most important Masoretic manuscripts date from the end of the ninth century to the early eleventh century. Notable among these is the Leningrad Codex (AD 1008), denoted as L, which is the earliest Masoretic manuscript of the entire OT. Also important are the Aleppo Codex (c. AD 925), denoted as A, which preserves all of the OT except for most of the Pentateuch; the British Museum MS Or. 4445 (c. AD 925), denoted as B, which contains most of the Pentateuch; and the Cairo Codex (c. AD 896), denoted C, which contains Joshua through Kings and also the Prophets.

Although these manuscripts are much later than the biblical period, their reliability was largely confirmed with the discovery of the DSS beginning in 1947. Among the Qumran library are many manuscripts of biblical books as well as biblical commentaries, apocrphyal and pseudepigraphal works, and sectarian literature. All the OT books are represented among the scrolls that were found except Esther and Nehemiah, though the latter is usually presumed to have been at the end of Ezra but has not survived. The books with the most manuscripts are, in order, Psalms, Deuteronomy, and Isaiah. One of the striking characteristics of these scrolls is that they reflect a diversity of text types. For example, there is a copy of Jeremiah that is close to the Masoretic version, but also a manuscript of Jeremiah similar to the much shorter version found in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT).

Another Hebrew text of the OT is that of the Samaritan Pentateuch, which is the text transmitted by the Samaritans. It is similar to the MT in some respects but also has differences that reflect theological interests. The main manuscripts for the Samaritan Pentateuch are from the twelfth century.

Versions. Between the third and first centuries BC, the entire OT was translated into Greek. This version, known as the Septuagint (designated by the abbreviation LXX), became the main version of the OT used by the early church. Due to its adoption by the church, the LXX has been preserved in numerous manuscripts, including Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Vaticanus. By the late first century BC or early first century AD, there were two revisions of the Greek text: the Proto-Lucianic version and the Kaige recension. The latter aimed to revise the Greek toward closer conformity with the Hebrew text and derives its name from its peculiar tendency to translate the Hebrew word gam (“also”) with the Greek work kaige. In the second century AD three other Greek translations were made by Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus, all of which revised the Kaige recension back toward the MT.

Another important early version of the OT consists of the Targumim, which are Aramaic translations or paraphrases (and sometimes extensive elaborations) of OT books. The official Targumim for Judaism are Targum Onqelos for the Pentateuch (c. second century AD), which is quite literal, and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan for the Prophets (sometime before the fourth century AD), which ranges from being quite literal to somewhat paraphrastic. Unofficial Targumim for the Pentateuch include Targum Neofiti and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. There are also various unofficial Targumim for the Writings section of the OT, except for Daniel and Ezra-Nehemiah (which are already written partly in Aramaic).

Besides the Greek and Aramaic translations, there are other important versions of the OT. Sometime in either the third or fourth century AD, the Peshitta of the OT was produced, though there is evidence that there were earlier Syriac translations of some books already circulating. Also important is a group of Latin translations known collectively as the Old Latin. These versions were produced sometime during the second century AD and were primarily made from already existing Greek translations rather than Hebrew texts. As with the NT, a later Latin translation was made by Jerome for the Vulgate.

Hermeneutics is the science and practice of interpretation. It can refer more generally to the philosophy of human understanding, or more specifically to the tools and methods used for interpreting communicative acts.

Human communication takes place in a variety of ways: through the use of nonverbal signs, through speech, and through writing. Effective communication requires some degree of shared belief, knowledge, and background between the participants. If the communicators have a significant amount of common ground, they will be able to successfully understand one another with little extra effort. Conversely, individuals with vastly different backgrounds will need to take extra steps to communicate effectively, such as defining special terms, avoiding jargon and colloquialisms, appreciating details about the other’s cultural assumptions, or learning a foreign language.

The Bible is not exempt from this process of communication. The Scriptures are meant to be read, understood, and put into practice (Luke 8:4–15; James 1:18), a task that requires effort and study on the part of its readers (Acts 17:11; 2 Tim. 2:15). Everyone who reads the Bible is involved in this interpretative process, though readers will vary in their hermeneutical self-consciousness and skill. Thus, although readers are able to understand and appropriate much of the Bible without any special training in hermeneutical principles, such training is appropriate and helpful, both in attaining self-consciousness in interpretation and in acquiring new skills and insights in the effort to become a better reader.

The Development of Hermeneutics

The church has benefited from a long history of thinking about the nature and purpose of interpreting its Scriptures, and that reflection has resulted in a wide variety of hermeneutical theories and practices. How does one determine the meaning of a text? Is meaning the truth embedded within the passage? Or is it the original author’s intention in writing? Or does the text act independently of its author and history, either because it stands on its own terms or because it only “means” anything in interaction with readers? The answers to these questions will determine how readers approach a text, the questions they expect that text to answer, and the tools they use in interpretation.

From the early church to the Enlightenment. The early church emphasized the ability of the biblical text to convey heavenly truth, whether that truth was conceived as doctrinal teaching or absolute ethical rules. While the “literal meaning” of many texts could often supply simple truths and maxims, such a reading was at other times inadequate and could appear incompatible with what were considered basic and fundamental beliefs. Various allegorical techniques were therefore employed to explain such problematic texts. Interpreters often viewed the literal and historical features of the text as a starting point in the search for fuller meaning, as symbolic pointers to moral principles, absolute truths, or eternal realities. These practices were systematized throughout the Middle Ages and resulted in an extensive development of tradition. Church tradition, in turn, provided a degree of protection from the potential for arbitrariness in allegorical techniques, insisting that interpretation must be guided by the “rule of faith,” the traditional teaching and faith of the church.

Beginning in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, scholarship moved to distance itself from such tradition. The Protestant Reformers, dissatisfied with the rule of church tradition, sought to displace its authority with the direct rule of Scripture. They therefore returned to the original biblical text, engaging in critical study of the text itself and translating the Bible into the vernacular to make it more widely accessible. In the centuries that followed, Enlightenment scholars went a step further in their rejection of the church as the sole repository of knowledge. Instead, they asserted, knowledge was acquired through scientific inquiry and critical study. Such inquiry could be applied to any field: the forces of nature, human anatomy, or the interpretation of texts. The meaning of a text was not some abstract truth or heavenly principle; rather, meaning was determined by the human author’s original intention in writing and was therefore a historical matter. The intention of an author could be better exposed and understood through a more complete study of both the language in which a text was written and the historical circumstances that surrounded it. Many of these same emphases had been championed by the Protestant Reformers; yet the Enlightenment thinkers differed on one key point: the Reformers never questioned that the text was the word of God.

From the Enlightenment to the present. This favorable attitude toward historical research dwindled over the centuries. In its place authors emphasized the primacy of the text as text, apart from any connection to its origin and history. Literature, it is argued, ultimately operates independently from its author’s intention. All that matters is the text, and it is the reader’s job to understand the text on its own terms, apart from the contingencies surrounding its creation. To that end, interpreters should pay careful attention to the text’s literary features, including its plot structure, characterization, themes, and use of imagery. An interesting example of this hermeneutical dynamic is found in John 19:22, where Pilate asserts, “What I have written, I have written.” Pilate’s words quickly take on significance far beyond their author’s intention, primarily because they are juxtaposed with other themes in John, such as testimony and the kingship of Christ.

More recent approaches have emphasized the role of the reader in the construction of meaning. Interpretation, it is argued, is determined by the interaction between reader and text; readers bring their own presuppositions to the task of interpretation, and such assumptions determine meaning. The author and the historical context of the text will exert some influence, but the primary determinant of meaning is the present reader in his or her present environment. This is not to say that the text “means” whatever a reader wants it to mean; rather, it makes meaning contingent upon the contemporary environment and not subject to anything external to individual readers. On the one hand, readers must“actualize” the text by applying and appropriating it within an environment alien to the original. On the other, readers have the right, and in some cases the responsibility, of undermining the text, particularly if that text assists in the oppression of others.

Elements of an Effective Hermeneutic

An effective hermeneutic requires keeping each of these elements in constant balance with one another. God’s word is truthful and fully trustworthy, yet it is given to his people through individual human authors, authors who wrote in a particular context to a particular audience at a particular time. Understanding the Bible therefore requires knowledge of the purposes of these authors in their specific historical contexts. Nevertheless, our primary access to authorial intention is through the biblical text itself. Finally, understanding always requires personal interaction with, and application of, the text of Scripture to each person’s own life and circumstances. Thus, hermeneutics involves the simultaneous interaction of a variety of perspectives—truth, author, text, and reader—each of which cannot function properly without the others. What follows here is an outline of the most important hermeneutical tools required for such a weighty endeavor.

Linguistics

An appreciation of the nature, structure, and function of language is fundamental to any interpretative endeavor. Obviously, this applies first of all to the specific languages in which the books of the Bible were originally composed. Each language has its own unique vocabulary, grammar, and syntax, and structures available to a writer in one language often are absent in another. Thus, while it is often necessary and acceptable to rely on translations (Neh. 7:73–8:12), readers should be aware that translation itself involves a degree of unavoidable interpretation.

A more general analysis of language is also useful. Understanding the typical patterns by which authors will string sentences together is necessary for following a writing’s train of thought. This tool, called “discourse analysis,” operates above the sentence level, attempting to understand and explain how sentences function in conjunction with one another in order to produce meaningful paragraphs, and how those paragraphs in turn operate within the overarching purpose of the discourse. These patterns of discourse can vary on the basis of book, author, language, culture, and literary genre, but there are also features of effective discourse common to all communication. Thus, while the principles and rules of communication are often intuitively grasped, understanding language, both generally and specifically, is foundational to the task of interpretation.

Literature and Literary Theory

The biblical writers are concerned not only with the informational content of their writing, but also with the manner in which that content is communicated. The words, patterns of speech, style, and imagery of any text provide significant insight into its purpose and message, apart from that text’s specific propositional content. The diversity of language used in the Gospels provides an example of this. Each of the four Gospel authors has a slightly different concern in his writing. John’s purpose, “that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31), explains his frequent use of courtroom language, such as “testimony” and “witness” (e.g., John 21:24). Mark, by contrast, sweeps the reader along a fast-paced and intensely personal exposition of Jesus’ life and death through the terseness and immediacy of his narration. Attention to these literary details allows the reader to more fully participate in the world of the text.

Such decisions will often depend upon a thorough analysis of genre. A reader naturally interprets historical narrative differently from poetry and didactic material. Furthermore, the conventions of different genres change over time. The book of Acts, for example, despite its essentially historical character, does not appear concerned with recording an exact dictation of the many speeches it reports, despite modern expectations that historical writing should be as precise as possible. The classification of ancient genres and the description of their respective conventions therefore require a good deal of analysis and sensitivity, but often such insights are provided by a careful and open reading of the text.

History

As the product of a particular author at a particular time, each book of the Bible is situated within its own unique historical context. Paul, for example, while perhaps conscious of the importance of his letters for posterity, wrote to specific churches or individuals with a singular purpose. This particularity of author, audience, and circumstance can often cause interpretative problems. Thus, while background studies are not always necessary to get the general idea of the author’s message, they can be invaluable in protecting readers from anachronism and enabling them to better appreciate the author’s purpose and perspective.

Historical study is assisted by specialized disciplines. Archaeology, for example, focuses on the beliefs, habits, practices, and history of ancient cultures, harnessing a wealth of evidence to that end. Similarly, anthropology and other social sciences are able to explore facets of modern cultures in order to better assess cross-cultural presuppositions and behaviors, many of which provide insight into ancient civilizations that shared similar attitudes. These methods provide the reader with the information necessary to understand a text in terms consistent with its cultural backdrop, highlighting both the similarities and the differences between the Bible and its environment. Recent discoveries of ancient Hittite treaties, for example, shed light on the “cutting ceremony” recorded in Gen. 15. These treaties detail similar ceremonies in which the vassal of a king would walk between hewed animal carcasses as a symbol of allegiance; if disobedience occurred, the vassal would share the fate of the animals. A similar ceremony occurs in Genesis, but with an interesting twist at the end: God, not Abram, passes through the pieces (15:17).

Humility and the Attitude of the Reader

Careful attention in interpretation requires a great deal of humility. It is difficult to overstate the importance of the attitude of the reader for an effective hermeneutic. Being a good reader requires willingness to share and participate in the world of the author and the text, a willingness that postpones judgment and expects personal change. This, in turn, requires a spirit of self-criticism, a commitment to defer one’s own presuppositions in favor of those of the text. Although readers are never able to fully distance themselves from their cultural situation and assumptions, the study of hermeneutics, among other things, can provide tools and skills for self-criticism and self-awareness, skills that enable the reader to better understand, appreciate, and appropriate the meaning of a text. Even a peripheral understanding of the complexities of interpretation can help readers develop an attitude of humility, imagination, and expectation as they approach the Scriptures.

Such humility is a prerequisite for application. The depth of meaning embedded in any text, and especially within the Bible, provides the humble reader with a rich and powerful tool for personal growth. Having better understood the world of the text on its own terms, readers are able to “project” that world onto themselves and their environment, to appropriate its meaning in a new and possibly foreign context. Thus, Jesus promises that those who hear, understand, and put his word into practice will yield a crop “some thirty, some sixty, some a hundred times what was sown” (Mark 4:20).

Unique Features of Biblical Interpretation

Certain unique features of the biblical text can create special opportunities and challenges for the Christian interpreter. These challenges are at work in the Bible’s own interpretation of itself. The Bible was written by many different authors over the course of a long period of history; it is therefore not surprising to find later authors reflecting on earlier periods. This innerbiblical interpretation offers the Christian insights into the unique nature of biblical hermeneutics and therefore provides a foundational model in approaching the Bible as the word of God.

The common and preeminent assumption that grounds innerbiblical interpretation is the commitment to ultimate divine authorship. Thus, the writer of Hebrews, though affirming the diversity of human authorship in the Bible (1:1), regularly introduces OT quotations with statements such as “God says” (1:5), “he spoke through David” (4:7), and “the Holy Spirit says” (3:7). Other writers tend to prefer the formula “it is written,” but each of these reflects a common presupposition that the Scriptures are ultimately delivered by God (2 Pet. 1:21).

Divine authorship means, at the very least, that there is a depth of meaning and purpose to the text, a depth often hidden even from the human author (1 Pet. 1:10–12). Psalm 2, for example, probably originally served as a coronation hymn used to celebrate the appointment of a new king in Israel. Yet the NT understands this psalm as a prophecy fulfilled in the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Acts 13:33; Heb. 5:5). The intention of the original speaker can even be at odds with God’s intention, such as when Caiaphas claims, “It is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish” (John 11:50; cf. Acts 5:35–39). In this case, the irony of Caiaphas’s statement creates a powerful testimony, contrary to his intent, and is used by John to promote confidence in Jesus.

Furthermore, because the Scriptures are from God, they have a consistent and central focus. The NT unhesitatingly views all of Scripture, in all its diversity, as focused, by virtue of divine inspiration, on the person and work of Jesus Christ. This is seen in, for example, Luke 24:13–35, where the resurrected Jesus, “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” explains to his disciples “what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself” (cf. John 5:39; 12:41). This central focus on Christ requires the Christian interpreter to understand any individual verse in light of its context within the canon, to operate with the same assumption as the NT apostles, that all the Scriptures are concerned with testifying to Jesus the Christ.

Additionally, Paul views both Testaments as the special possession and once-for-all foundation of God’s church (Eph. 2:19–20; cf. Acts 2:42). The church, from a NT perspective, is the primary audience of the entirety of Scripture (1 Pet. 1:12) and is therefore uniquely entrusted with understanding and proclaiming its message (Matt. 28:18–20). While the Scriptures themselves are the only infallible guide for interpretation, believers should not forsake the teaching and tradition of the church (2 Thess. 2:15).

Finally, full understanding of the Bible requires the work of the Holy Spirit in conjunction with the faith of the reader. Belief and understanding go together (John 10:38), and both are the result of the unique work of the Holy Spirit (16:13). The proof that such understanding has taken place is the godly life of the believer (Rom. 2:13; James 1:22–25). The reverse is also true: disobedience works against understanding the riches of God’s Word (James 1:21). Such considerations underline the importance of the hermeneutical task. The tools and principles of hermeneutics are valuable only insofar as they enable the reader to better understand and appropriate the biblical message, to hear the word of God and respond appropriately.

Old Testament

Students of biblical history must work with several overlapping systems of chronology. This section defines several approaches and describes how they are interconnected.

Absolute and relative dates. Absolute dates consist of a numerical value falling in one of two eras, BC (“Before Christ”; also referred to as BCE, “Before the Common Era”) or AD (Anno Domini, “in the year of our Lord”; also referred to as CE, “Common Era”). For example, Samaria fell to the Assyrians in 722 BC. This system of absolute dating, a commonplace of modern life, was devised only in the sixth century AD, so it is unknown in biblical and other ancient sources. Instead of absolute dates, the Bible and other ancient historiographic sources give relative dates; that is, events are dated in relation to other recorded events, as in 1 Kings 15:1: “In the eighteenth year of the reign of Jeroboam son of Nebat, Abijah became king of Judah.” The system of relative dates in the OT can be collated to form a single relative chronology.

Using royal histories. For the purposes of constructing a unified chronology, the royal history in Samuel-Kings and Chronicles is of central importance, with its tabulations of the ages of the kings at accession and the lengths of their reigns. The biblical chronology can then be assigned to absolute dates by establishing synchronisms with other historical chronicles (most usefully, from Mesopotamia), which in turn can be fixed to a handful of absolute dates. Of particular importance are records (all nonbiblical cuneiform texts) of observed astronomical phenomena, the appearance of which in history can now be calculated with a high degree of mathematical certainty. Annalistic sources (documents that record an entry for each passing year, such as the cuneiform eponym chronicles) are particularly valuable. The Bible contains no annalistic sources, but rather is made up of chronistic sources—that is, texts that record and quantify the passage of time, but without a separate accounting of each year. When miscalculations or textual corruptions affect chronistic records, they are difficult to correct (see 1 Sam. 13:1). The biblical data, consisting of summary figures, probably go back to annalistic sources that were compiled from year to year (perhaps the records mentioned in, e.g., 1 Kings 11:41; 14:19).

The assembly of a unified biblical chronology on the basis of the royal histories is further complicated by the fact that several calendars—royal, agricultural, cultic—were in simultaneous use. There may also have been a discrepancy between Israel and Judah with regard to the reckoning of the cultic New Year. Added to this, in several cases the biblical data imply a period of coregency, during which the reigns of the outgoing king and his appointed successor overlapped, creating the potential for the years of the coregency to be counted twice. In biblical times there were two systems of reckoning dates based on royal succession: the “accession-year” system, which omitted from the length of a king’s reign any partial year from his accession to the first New Year, and the “nonaccession-year” system, which began counting the years of a king’s reign as soon as he acceded. In nonaccession-year dating, any year in which there are two kings gets counted twice: once as the last year of the former king, and once as the first year of the new king. The biblical chronologies appear to use both systems, with a movement from the nonaccession-year system to the accession-year system in later centuries. Obviously, the choice of systems dictates the significance of the figures presented in the Bible and must be taken into account in the collation of data.

Combining royal regnal data and various genealogical tables (based on, e.g., Gen. 5; 11; the summary figures in Exod. 12:41; 1 Kings 6:1), it is possible to reconstruct a putative world chronology from the creation of Adam to the exile. Famously, in 1650 James Ussher followed this procedure, working backward from absolute dates known from classical sources, to determine that the world was created on the night before October 23, 4004 BC. In its day, this was a work of impressive scholarship, but Ussher’s chronology is too short to encompass not only archaeological findings (from the land of Israel itself, there are Neolithic and Chalcolithic artifacts going back ten thousand years), but also findings in all branches of the sciences that corroborate the age of the earth at about 4.5 billion years and the appearance of modern humans approximately two hundred thousand years before the present. Beginning in the first millennium BC, however, the Bible provides chronological data that, with modest adjustments, agree with other historical and archaeological findings.

Weighing the sources. Because of the variety of materials in the OT, it is crucial to determine which sources are of historical value, weighing each in terms of internal and external coherence. As noted above, the backbone of OT chronology is the series of regnal data for the kings of Israel and Judah found in Samuel-Kings and Chronicles. These data are useful because they provide a continuous chronology of several hundred years that can be anchored at several points to datable events in external historical sources. In addition, the history of the kings of Judah and Israel contains references to historical figures known from extrabiblical records. In contrast, the chronology of the OT prior to the period of judges, while internally coherent, cannot be correlated to known absolute dates. Where non-Israelite figures are mentioned, they are often unnamed (e.g., the pharaohs of the eras of Abraham and Moses), anachronistically described (e.g., Abraham’s contacts with the Philistines [Gen. 21:34], a group that did not appear in Palestine until long after the ostensible Middle Bronze Age date of Abraham), or do not correspond to known historical figures (e.g., Abimelek, Nimrod). Although cultural-historical investigation may shed light on the patriarchal narratives and their historical setting, such an approach yields nothing more than vague chronological findings. In some cases, the late date of the biblical texts has obscured chronological indicators, interfering with the project of cultural history. Setting aside questions of the historicity of the patriarchal narratives, apart from the reports of their ages, there is little data to work with when it comes to constructing a chronology of the patriarchs.

The story of the exodus from Egypt presents an event that, in principle, should be datable on the basis of external data. The mass migration of millions of persons, the destruction of the army of a geopolitical superpower, and the subsequent conquest of a small but powerful country are events that promise to provide a chronological anchor for the beginning of Israel’s history. Unfortunately, the event recorded in the Bible has not left a clear mark, either in the historiography of Egypt or in the archaeology of Palestine. On closer inspection, the biblical text contains a number of features that frustrate any attempt to date the events on their basis. Unlike in the histories of the biblical monarchs, the pharaoh of the Exodus, a figure of international stature in his own day, is never named in the Bible. Some have attempted to fix a date to the exodus on the basis of the occurrence of the name “Rameses” in Exod. 1:11; 12:37. This name was not current in Egypt before the thirteenth century BC. If it provides a clue as to the date of the exodus, it does so only at the expense of broader biblical chronology, according to which the exodus occurred in the fifteenth century BC (in particular, based on the figures given in Exod. 12:41; 1 Kings 6:1). It is not until we get into the monarchic period, when the history of Israel is intertwined with that of named international figures, that absolute dates can be established with certainty.

Biblical events that can be assigned absolute dates based on cuneiform historical records include the following. Ahab was king of Israel at the time of the battle of Qarqar in 853 BC. The Kurkh monolith of Shalmaneser III records his participation in the coalition of Hadadezer, though the event is not mentioned in the Bible. Jehu was on the throne of Judah in 841 BC, when Shalmaneser III recorded that he gave tribute to Assyria. Joash was king of Israel in 796 BC, when he rendered tribute to Adad-nirari III. Menahem was king in 740 and 738 BC (see 2 Kings 15:19), when he paid tribute to Tiglath-pileser III (the biblical Pul). Ahaz paid tribute to Tiglath-pileser in 734 BC, and Manasseh to Esarhaddon around 674 BC. These synchronisms provide in each case upper and lower limits for fixing the reign of the kings of Israel and Judah. In some cases, the chronology of the book of Kings must be adjusted to fit these dates, on the assumption that the Deuteronomistic Historian lacked firsthand knowledge about the history of the northern kingdom, was attempting to work with conflicting sources, or made errors in calculation. Other important synchronisms include Hoshea’s coup against Pekah (2 Kings 15:30), dated based on an inscription of Tiglath-pileser III to 732 BC; the fall of Samaria (2 Kings 17:6), dated based on the Babylonian Chronicle to 722 BC; Sennacherib’s Judean campaign in 701 BC (2 Kings 18:13–19:36); the Battle of Carchemish in 605 BC (Jer. 46:2); the capture of Jerusalem in 597 BC (2 Kings 24:12); and the release of Jehoiachin from captivity in 561 BC, coinciding with the accession of Amel-Marduk (2 Kings 25:27).

Periodization of history. In addition to relative and absolute chronologies, biblical scholars refer to several schemes of periodization defined by technological and political developments.

The most ancient scheme of periodization is implied in the Bible itself, which conceives of periods of judges (Judg. 17:6), united monarchy, divided monarchy, and exile. The transitions between phases in this scheme are defined by dramatic social and political discontinuities. Another approach to the periodization of Israelite history involves defining the major transitions in terms of the material culture. Prior to the fall of Jerusalem, modern biblical scholars and archaeologists divide Syro-Palestinian history into several periods, named for developments in metallurgical technology. While there is some variety of opinion among scholars regarding the exact dates used, the following scheme is widely used (given with rough correlations to the biblical periods):

Early Bronze Age – 3300 to 2200 BC (Primeval period?)

Middle Bronze Age – 2200 to 1550 BC (Patriarch)

Late Bronze Age – 1550 to 1200 BC (Period in Egypt, exodus)

Iron Age – 1200 to 586 BC (Judges monarchy)

The Iron Age is further subdivided as follows:

Iron Age – 1200 to 1000 BC (Judges)

Iron Age IIA – 1000 to 900 BC (United monarchy)

Iron Age IIB – 900 to 700 BC (Divided monarchy)

Iron Age IIC – 700 to 586 BC (Fall of Samaria to fall of Jerusalem

The divisions between these periods are heuristic and do not correspond to precisely dated developments in metallurgy. For instance, some iron artifacts may be dated to the Bronze Age, though not widespread iron metalworking on an industrial scale. Especially in the various subdivisions of the Iron Age, transitions begin to be defined by political events rather than the metal sequence: Iron IA corresponds to the biblical period of the judges, Iron IIA to the united monarchy, Iron IIB to the divided monarchy, and Iron IIC to the period between the falls of Samaria and Jerusalem, when the southern kingdom alone had political autonomy. Some scholars round off the dates to avoid a periodization based on short-term political events and to emphasize the gradual rate of change in material culture and technology (e.g., using the round dates 900, 700, 600).

For events and dates after the fall of Jerusalem, historians employ a scheme of periodization based heavily on political factors. The series of periods are named for the dominant geopolitical powers in Syria-Palestine:

Neo-Babylonian period – 622 to 539 BC (Late Judean monarchy, exile)

Persian period – 539 to 330 BC (Return from exile)

Hellenistic period – 330 to 63 BC (Intertestamental)

Roman period – 63 BC to AD 324 (New Testament events

Although there was significant redaction (and, according to some, composition) of biblical texts in the Hellenistic period, no biblical narratives are ostensibly set in the period. Thus, the internal periodization of history in the Hebrew Bible ends with the return from exile (the Persian period).

New Testament

The birth of Jesus. According to Matt. 2:1 (see also Luke 1:5), Jesus was born during the lifetime of Herod the Great, who, as we know from Josephus, died in 4 BC (see Matt. 2:15–19). In his attempt to kill Jesus, Herod ordered the slaughter of male children up to the age of two, based on information that he obtained from the magi concerning the appearance of the star heralding Jesus’ birth (Matt. 2:16). Thus, Matthew’s account implies a date no later than 4 BC, but possibly several years earlier. Some scholars have attempted to correlate the magi’s observance of a star with one of several striking celestial phenomena, including a conjunction of Jupiter, Saturn, and Mars in 7 BC (so Johannes Kepler). Such attempts, however, are weakened by the fact that Matthew’s description of the star is vague, unnaturalistic, and difficult to identify certainly with a planetary alignment or any other known phenomenon (in particular, the star is said to move and then come to rest over Jesus’ location). Another line of investigation involves Luke’s correlation of Jesus’ birth with a Roman census that he dates to the time of Quirinius (Luke 2:1–2). This report, however, contradicts the testimony of Josephus, according to whom Quirinius became governor in AD 6 (a decade after the death of Herod). Most likely, Jesus was born shortly before 4 BC, during the reign of Herod.

The beginning and duration of Jesus’ public ministry. According to Luke 3:23, Jesus was “about thirty years old” at the time of his baptism and the beginning of his public ministry. In John 8:57, Jesus is challenged: “You are not yet fifty years old.” These two round numbers provide reasonable limits for the age of Jesus during his ministry. Owing to a paucity of chronological indicators in the Synoptic Gospels, the ministry of Jesus as depicted in Matthew, Mark, and Luke could have taken place within the space of a single year. In contrast, John narrates postbaptism events during three occurrences of the annual Passover festival (John 2:13; 6:4; 11:55), suggesting that Jesus’ ministry lasted for three years or longer. Unfortunately, the chronology of John appears in some instances to be at odds with the other Gospels. Most significantly, he places Jesus’ cleansing of the temple at the beginning, rather than the end, of his ministry (John 2:13–22; cf. Mark 11:15–19 pars.). It is unclear to what degree strict chronology has been modified in the interest of other concerns in each of the Gospels. According to John’s account, the cleansing of the temple occurred forty-six years after the beginning of its construction, an event that Josephus dates to either the eighteenth or the fifteenth year of Herod’s reign (John 2:20), placing the incident in the year AD 28 or 31. Ultimately, there are two sources of uncertainty pertaining to the chronology of Jesus’ ministry: the imprecise (and possibly symbolic) report of his age in Luke 3:23 and the indeterminate length of his ministry.

The death of Jesus. All four Gospels agree that Pontius Pilate, the Roman procurator of Judea, was instrumental in the trial and execution of Jesus. Pilate governed from AD 26 to 36; this provides a latest possible date for the death of Jesus. To refine the chronology beyond this, scholars have attempted to date the end of Jesus’ life based on its occurrence during the Feast of Passover (15 Nisan in the Jewish calendar) and by trying to determine in which year the feast would have coincided with his crucifixion on a Friday. This approach is complicated by the discrepancy between John, according to whom the Passover meal was eaten in the evening following the crucifixion (John 19:14), and Mark, who appears to have an imperfect knowledge of Passover customs (Mark 14:12–16) and thus describes Jesus’ final supper with his disciples as a Passover meal (i.e., on 14 Nisan). Following John’s chronology yields a date for the crucifixion of Friday, April 7 (Nisan 14), AD 30, or Friday, April 3 (Nisan 14), AD 33.

Of these two options, the AD 30 date conforms more closely to Luke 3:23, and it suggests that following a ministry of about three years, Jesus was in his mid- to late thirties at the time of his crucifixion.

Paul’s career. The chronology of Paul’s career remains a difficult question in biblical studies. There are two major sources for this chronology: the letters of Paul (esp. Galatians) and the book of Acts. When independent chronologies are constructed from each of these sources, several difficulties arise, including the absence of absolute anchors in Paul’s letters, lack of clear agreement between Acts and the letters regarding the number of visits to Jerusalem, and, by implication, the periodization of Paul’s career into distinct phases of concerted activity or “missionary journeys.” These data must in turn be synchronized, sometimes requiring some ingenuity, with other historically documented events such as the dating of Claudius’s edict (Acts 18:2), the dates of Aretas’s control of Damascus (2 Cor. 11:32–33), the death of Herod Agrippa in AD 44 (mentioned in Acts 12:23), the presence of Sergius Paulus in Cyprus during Paul’s first missionary journey (Acts 13:7 [this figure is known from inscriptions, but none of them clearly bears on the question]), and Festus’s succession of Felix as the procurator of Palestine (Acts 23–26), which Josephus puts in AD 53.

If we grant a fair measure of historical reliability to the outline of Acts, Paul experienced his conversion around AD 33, visited Jerusalem in AD 36 (Gal. 1:18), completed his first missionary journey and then visited Jerusalem to confer with the other apostles (Acts 15:1–29; Gal. 2:1) in the late 40s, conducted his second and third missionary journeys in the first half of the 50s before being finally arrested in Jerusalem around AD 57, and was taken to Rome in AD 59–60.

Hermeneutics is the science and practice of interpretation. It can refer more generally to the philosophy of human understanding, or more specifically to the tools and methods used for interpreting communicative acts.

Human communication takes place in a variety of ways: through the use of nonverbal signs, through speech, and through writing. Effective communication requires some degree of shared belief, knowledge, and background between the participants. If the communicators have a significant amount of common ground, they will be able to successfully understand one another with little extra effort. Conversely, individuals with vastly different backgrounds will need to take extra steps to communicate effectively, such as defining special terms, avoiding jargon and colloquialisms, appreciating details about the other’s cultural assumptions, or learning a foreign language.

The Bible is not exempt from this process of communication. The Scriptures are meant to be read, understood, and put into practice (Luke 8:4–15; James 1:18), a task that requires effort and study on the part of its readers (Acts 17:11; 2 Tim. 2:15). Everyone who reads the Bible is involved in this interpretative process, though readers will vary in their hermeneutical self-consciousness and skill. Thus, although readers are able to understand and appropriate much of the Bible without any special training in hermeneutical principles, such training is appropriate and helpful, both in attaining self-consciousness in interpretation and in acquiring new skills and insights in the effort to become a better reader.

The Development of Hermeneutics

The church has benefited from a long history of thinking about the nature and purpose of interpreting its Scriptures, and that reflection has resulted in a wide variety of hermeneutical theories and practices. How does one determine the meaning of a text? Is meaning the truth embedded within the passage? Or is it the original author’s intention in writing? Or does the text act independently of its author and history, either because it stands on its own terms or because it only “means” anything in interaction with readers? The answers to these questions will determine how readers approach a text, the questions they expect that text to answer, and the tools they use in interpretation.

From the early church to the Enlightenment. The early church emphasized the ability of the biblical text to convey heavenly truth, whether that truth was conceived as doctrinal teaching or absolute ethical rules. While the “literal meaning” of many texts could often supply simple truths and maxims, such a reading was at other times inadequate and could appear incompatible with what were considered basic and fundamental beliefs. Various allegorical techniques were therefore employed to explain such problematic texts. Interpreters often viewed the literal and historical features of the text as a starting point in the search for fuller meaning, as symbolic pointers to moral principles, absolute truths, or eternal realities. These practices were systematized throughout the Middle Ages and resulted in an extensive development of tradition. Church tradition, in turn, provided a degree of protection from the potential for arbitrariness in allegorical techniques, insisting that interpretation must be guided by the “rule of faith,” the traditional teaching and faith of the church.

Beginning in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, scholarship moved to distance itself from such tradition. The Protestant Reformers, dissatisfied with the rule of church tradition, sought to displace its authority with the direct rule of Scripture. They therefore returned to the original biblical text, engaging in critical study of the text itself and translating the Bible into the vernacular to make it more widely accessible. In the centuries that followed, Enlightenment scholars went a step further in their rejection of the church as the sole repository of knowledge. Instead, they asserted, knowledge was acquired through scientific inquiry and critical study. Such inquiry could be applied to any field: the forces of nature, human anatomy, or the interpretation of texts. The meaning of a text was not some abstract truth or heavenly principle; rather, meaning was determined by the human author’s original intention in writing and was therefore a historical matter. The intention of an author could be better exposed and understood through a more complete study of both the language in which a text was written and the historical circumstances that surrounded it. Many of these same emphases had been championed by the Protestant Reformers; yet the Enlightenment thinkers differed on one key point: the Reformers never questioned that the text was the word of God.

From the Enlightenment to the present. This favorable attitude toward historical research dwindled over the centuries. In its place authors emphasized the primacy of the text as text, apart from any connection to its origin and history. Literature, it is argued, ultimately operates independently from its author’s intention. All that matters is the text, and it is the reader’s job to understand the text on its own terms, apart from the contingencies surrounding its creation. To that end, interpreters should pay careful attention to the text’s literary features, including its plot structure, characterization, themes, and use of imagery. An interesting example of this hermeneutical dynamic is found in John 19:22, where Pilate asserts, “What I have written, I have written.” Pilate’s words quickly take on significance far beyond their author’s intention, primarily because they are juxtaposed with other themes in John, such as testimony and the kingship of Christ.

More recent approaches have emphasized the role of the reader in the construction of meaning. Interpretation, it is argued, is determined by the interaction between reader and text; readers bring their own presuppositions to the task of interpretation, and such assumptions determine meaning. The author and the historical context of the text will exert some influence, but the primary determinant of meaning is the present reader in his or her present environment. This is not to say that the text “means” whatever a reader wants it to mean; rather, it makes meaning contingent upon the contemporary environment and not subject to anything external to individual readers. On the one hand, readers must“actualize” the text by applying and appropriating it within an environment alien to the original. On the other, readers have the right, and in some cases the responsibility, of undermining the text, particularly if that text assists in the oppression of others.

Elements of an Effective Hermeneutic

An effective hermeneutic requires keeping each of these elements in constant balance with one another. God’s word is truthful and fully trustworthy, yet it is given to his people through individual human authors, authors who wrote in a particular context to a particular audience at a particular time. Understanding the Bible therefore requires knowledge of the purposes of these authors in their specific historical contexts. Nevertheless, our primary access to authorial intention is through the biblical text itself. Finally, understanding always requires personal interaction with, and application of, the text of Scripture to each person’s own life and circumstances. Thus, hermeneutics involves the simultaneous interaction of a variety of perspectives—truth, author, text, and reader—each of which cannot function properly without the others. What follows here is an outline of the most important hermeneutical tools required for such a weighty endeavor.

Linguistics

An appreciation of the nature, structure, and function of language is fundamental to any interpretative endeavor. Obviously, this applies first of all to the specific languages in which the books of the Bible were originally composed. Each language has its own unique vocabulary, grammar, and syntax, and structures available to a writer in one language often are absent in another. Thus, while it is often necessary and acceptable to rely on translations (Neh. 7:73–8:12), readers should be aware that translation itself involves a degree of unavoidable interpretation.

A more general analysis of language is also useful. Understanding the typical patterns by which authors will string sentences together is necessary for following a writing’s train of thought. This tool, called “discourse analysis,” operates above the sentence level, attempting to understand and explain how sentences function in conjunction with one another in order to produce meaningful paragraphs, and how those paragraphs in turn operate within the overarching purpose of the discourse. These patterns of discourse can vary on the basis of book, author, language, culture, and literary genre, but there are also features of effective discourse common to all communication. Thus, while the principles and rules of communication are often intuitively grasped, understanding language, both generally and specifically, is foundational to the task of interpretation.

Literature and Literary Theory

The biblical writers are concerned not only with the informational content of their writing, but also with the manner in which that content is communicated. The words, patterns of speech, style, and imagery of any text provide significant insight into its purpose and message, apart from that text’s specific propositional content. The diversity of language used in the Gospels provides an example of this. Each of the four Gospel authors has a slightly different concern in his writing. John’s purpose, “that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31), explains his frequent use of courtroom language, such as “testimony” and “witness” (e.g., John 21:24). Mark, by contrast, sweeps the reader along a fast-paced and intensely personal exposition of Jesus’ life and death through the terseness and immediacy of his narration. Attention to these literary details allows the reader to more fully participate in the world of the text.

Such decisions will often depend upon a thorough analysis of genre. A reader naturally interprets historical narrative differently from poetry and didactic material. Furthermore, the conventions of different genres change over time. The book of Acts, for example, despite its essentially historical character, does not appear concerned with recording an exact dictation of the many speeches it reports, despite modern expectations that historical writing should be as precise as possible. The classification of ancient genres and the description of their respective conventions therefore require a good deal of analysis and sensitivity, but often such insights are provided by a careful and open reading of the text.

History

As the product of a particular author at a particular time, each book of the Bible is situated within its own unique historical context. Paul, for example, while perhaps conscious of the importance of his letters for posterity, wrote to specific churches or individuals with a singular purpose. This particularity of author, audience, and circumstance can often cause interpretative problems. Thus, while background studies are not always necessary to get the general idea of the author’s message, they can be invaluable in protecting readers from anachronism and enabling them to better appreciate the author’s purpose and perspective.

Historical study is assisted by specialized disciplines. Archaeology, for example, focuses on the beliefs, habits, practices, and history of ancient cultures, harnessing a wealth of evidence to that end. Similarly, anthropology and other social sciences are able to explore facets of modern cultures in order to better assess cross-cultural presuppositions and behaviors, many of which provide insight into ancient civilizations that shared similar attitudes. These methods provide the reader with the information necessary to understand a text in terms consistent with its cultural backdrop, highlighting both the similarities and the differences between the Bible and its environment. Recent discoveries of ancient Hittite treaties, for example, shed light on the “cutting ceremony” recorded in Gen. 15. These treaties detail similar ceremonies in which the vassal of a king would walk between hewed animal carcasses as a symbol of allegiance; if disobedience occurred, the vassal would share the fate of the animals. A similar ceremony occurs in Genesis, but with an interesting twist at the end: God, not Abram, passes through the pieces (15:17).

Humility and the Attitude of the Reader

Careful attention in interpretation requires a great deal of humility. It is difficult to overstate the importance of the attitude of the reader for an effective hermeneutic. Being a good reader requires willingness to share and participate in the world of the author and the text, a willingness that postpones judgment and expects personal change. This, in turn, requires a spirit of self-criticism, a commitment to defer one’s own presuppositions in favor of those of the text. Although readers are never able to fully distance themselves from their cultural situation and assumptions, the study of hermeneutics, among other things, can provide tools and skills for self-criticism and self-awareness, skills that enable the reader to better understand, appreciate, and appropriate the meaning of a text. Even a peripheral understanding of the complexities of interpretation can help readers develop an attitude of humility, imagination, and expectation as they approach the Scriptures.

Such humility is a prerequisite for application. The depth of meaning embedded in any text, and especially within the Bible, provides the humble reader with a rich and powerful tool for personal growth. Having better understood the world of the text on its own terms, readers are able to “project” that world onto themselves and their environment, to appropriate its meaning in a new and possibly foreign context. Thus, Jesus promises that those who hear, understand, and put his word into practice will yield a crop “some thirty, some sixty, some a hundred times what was sown” (Mark 4:20).

Unique Features of Biblical Interpretation

Certain unique features of the biblical text can create special opportunities and challenges for the Christian interpreter. These challenges are at work in the Bible’s own interpretation of itself. The Bible was written by many different authors over the course of a long period of history; it is therefore not surprising to find later authors reflecting on earlier periods. This innerbiblical interpretation offers the Christian insights into the unique nature of biblical hermeneutics and therefore provides a foundational model in approaching the Bible as the word of God.

The common and preeminent assumption that grounds innerbiblical interpretation is the commitment to ultimate divine authorship. Thus, the writer of Hebrews, though affirming the diversity of human authorship in the Bible (1:1), regularly introduces OT quotations with statements such as “God says” (1:5), “he spoke through David” (4:7), and “the Holy Spirit says” (3:7). Other writers tend to prefer the formula “it is written,” but each of these reflects a common presupposition that the Scriptures are ultimately delivered by God (2 Pet. 1:21).

Divine authorship means, at the very least, that there is a depth of meaning and purpose to the text, a depth often hidden even from the human author (1 Pet. 1:10–12). Psalm 2, for example, probably originally served as a coronation hymn used to celebrate the appointment of a new king in Israel. Yet the NT understands this psalm as a prophecy fulfilled in the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Acts 13:33; Heb. 5:5). The intention of the original speaker can even be at odds with God’s intention, such as when Caiaphas claims, “It is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish” (John 11:50; cf. Acts 5:35–39). In this case, the irony of Caiaphas’s statement creates a powerful testimony, contrary to his intent, and is used by John to promote confidence in Jesus.

Furthermore, because the Scriptures are from God, they have a consistent and central focus. The NT unhesitatingly views all of Scripture, in all its diversity, as focused, by virtue of divine inspiration, on the person and work of Jesus Christ. This is seen in, for example, Luke 24:13–35, where the resurrected Jesus, “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” explains to his disciples “what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself” (cf. John 5:39; 12:41). This central focus on Christ requires the Christian interpreter to understand any individual verse in light of its context within the canon, to operate with the same assumption as the NT apostles, that all the Scriptures are concerned with testifying to Jesus the Christ.

Additionally, Paul views both Testaments as the special possession and once-for-all foundation of God’s church (Eph. 2:19–20; cf. Acts 2:42). The church, from a NT perspective, is the primary audience of the entirety of Scripture (1 Pet. 1:12) and is therefore uniquely entrusted with understanding and proclaiming its message (Matt. 28:18–20). While the Scriptures themselves are the only infallible guide for interpretation, believers should not forsake the teaching and tradition of the church (2 Thess. 2:15).

Finally, full understanding of the Bible requires the work of the Holy Spirit in conjunction with the faith of the reader. Belief and understanding go together (John 10:38), and both are the result of the unique work of the Holy Spirit (16:13). The proof that such understanding has taken place is the godly life of the believer (Rom. 2:13; James 1:22–25). The reverse is also true: disobedience works against understanding the riches of God’s Word (James 1:21). Such considerations underline the importance of the hermeneutical task. The tools and principles of hermeneutics are valuable only insofar as they enable the reader to better understand and appropriate the biblical message, to hear the word of God and respond appropriately.

First Peter is a concise handbook designed to prepare the Christian community to live faithfully and wisely as a minority facing an increasingly hostile community and government.

Outline

I. Greetings (1:1–2)

II. Who We Are in Christ (1:3–2:10)

III. How We Should Behave to Be Like Christ (2:11–3:12)

IV. How We Should Handle a Hostile Community (3:13–5:11)

V. Farewell (5:12–14)

Authorship

The letter is written by Peter, apostle and leader of the original twelve disciples of Jesus, who were with Jesus throughout his ministry from his baptism until his ascension (Acts 1:21–22).

The style of the author’s Greek is very well developed for a Galilean fisherman. Early on, Peter had astonished hearers who could not explain his eloquence, given that he had had no formal rabbinic training (Acts 4:13; cf. Luke 2:46–47). Examples of tinkers (John Bunyan), cobblers (William Carey), and teenagers (C. H. Spurgeon), not to mention authors excelling in their third language (Joseph Conrad), who write in polished styles suffice to reassure any doubts concerning Peter’s ability.

The author describes himself as a “fellow elder” and “witness of Christ’s sufferings” (5:1), speaking in the first-person singular (2:11; 5:1, 12–13). He is with John Mark (5:13), and the letter is written “with the help of” Silvanus/Silas (5:12), who may have served as Peter’s scribe, or amanuensis.

A number of second-century authorities report that Peter ministered in Rome, on and off, for up to twenty-five years prior to his execution by Nero in AD 65. Peter’s readers were suffering various trials and abuse (5:9), although no mention is made of any such threat to the church in Rome. It is therefore difficult to date 1 Peter, although it must have been written between AD 50 and 64. If 2 Pet. 3:1 indicates a subsequent letter to the same community, as seems probable, a date closer to AD 64 would be more likely.

Destination

The letter is addressed to “God’s elect, exiles scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia” (1:1). “Scattered” is a term used by the LXX to refer to the dispersion of the Jews originating with the Babylonian exile and is taken up as such in the NT (John 11:52; James 1:1). “Exiles” (KJV: “strangers”) was the word used to designate people who were not Roman citizens (1 Pet. 2:11).

Scholars have differed as to whether Peter was addressing a predominantly Jewish or Gentile community. The extensive allusions to the OT throughout the letter—with particular reference to the exodus, Passover, the Suffering Servant of Isaiah, Ps. 34, and Proverbs—assume that the readers have a good knowledge of all three sections of the OT. On the other hand, Peter also speaks of their former “ignorance” (1:14), of the “empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors” (1:18), and of pagans thinking it strange that they do not continue in their former pagan lifestyle (4:3–4). All his citations are from the Greek OT.

The five areas listed were located in what is today central and northern Turkey. The order may reflect the courier’s route. Paul had ministered in some of these regions (Galatia and Asia), and Jews from Cappadocia, Pontus, and Asia were in Jerusalem earlier when Peter preached his Pentecost sermon (Acts 2:9).

The emperor Claudius (r. AD 41–54) established Roman colonies in these five areas. It was Roman policy to extend the empire by establishing cities as centers of Roman culture, government, and trade. This often involved forced deportation of whole communities. In AD 49 Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome because “the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus” (Suetonius, Claud. 25.14–15). There is good reason to think that this may indicate the kind of disturbances also seen over the next few years in Philippi (Acts 16:20–21), Thessalonica (Acts 17:1–9), Corinth (Acts 18:12–17), and Ephesus (Acts 19).

Peter does not name any member of the community to which he is writing, nor is there any indication that he had ever been there. These regions were populated by Romans as part of a program of Roman colonization. As such, Christians who were not Roman citizens were in a very vulnerable position. The threat here comes from Gentiles, not other Jews (2:12). There is no mention of false teachers or other internal divisions.

Peter writes from “Babylon” (5:13), probably a code word for “Rome” (cf. Rev. 17:5, 9). The references to Babylon here and the Diaspora in 1:1 act as bookends designed to draw the parallel between the church’s present experience and that of the Jews during the exile (“fiery ordeal” [4:12]; cf. Dan. 1–6).

Main Themes

Peter states that it is all about grace (5:12). The Christian’s identity is grounded in the person and work of Jesus (1:2). His sufferings are a model of what Christians are expected to endure (1:11, 19; 2:21–25; 3:1–18; 4:12–17; 5:1), so his readers should see this as normal. This suffering is also a refining and testing process (1:6–7; 5:8–10). It fulfills God’s plan as revealed in the Scriptures (1:10–12, 23–25); thus one can be sure that behind all such experiences stand the purposes of God (1:2–3, 20–21; 3:18–22; 4:19; 5:6–7). Things are not out of control but rather are leading to the accomplishment of salvation for many (1:5, 9). Jesus has triumphed over all powers and authorities that might be fearfully ranged against his people (3:18–22) (see Descent into Hades). Like Noah and those on the ark, Christ’s people will be delivered through all events to an outcome of joy (1:6, 8).

A knowledge of the Scriptures (1:10–12, 23–25) equips those who are being sanctified to rightly understand what is happening and so fear God, whose judgment approaches (1:17; 3:6; 5:5, 7), rather than people. The believer should look first to God’s approval while being aware of the watching eye of those who would seek a basis for a charge (2:12; 3:1, 17; 4:14–19). This involves putting off the pagan lifestyle (2:1, 11) and putting on obedience (1:2, 14–16; 3:1–17). Peter surveys the behaviors most in need of attention: self-control, particularly in the way Christians speak when provoked (2:22–23; 3:4, 9–11), and family life, particularly when a woman is married to a threatening, unbelieving husband (3:1–6). Christian husbands are admonished to set a counterexample by knowing and honoring their wives (3:7). It is especially important that believers are seen to be submissive to government authorities (2:13–17) and to their masters (2:18–20). Within the church, sound leadership (5:1–4) supported by a new generation of respectful young men (5:5) is essential. Throughout all of this, Peter points the reader to the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit (1:2).

Peter strongly argues that the appropriate response to injustice and persecution is grace given as received from Jesus. The Christian’s defense is the gospel. Like Job, the believer’s mode of resistance is to present the integrity of a holy, redeemed, priestly lifestyle (3:15–16). One endures through informed belief in the gospel and through faithfulness to the triune God, who keeps his promises (1:9; cf. Hab. 2:4). The outcome is left in God’s hands (5:6–7).

Hermeneutics is the science and practice of interpretation. It can refer more generally to the philosophy of human understanding, or more specifically to the tools and methods used for interpreting communicative acts.

Human communication takes place in a variety of ways: through the use of nonverbal signs, through speech, and through writing. Effective communication requires some degree of shared belief, knowledge, and background between the participants. If the communicators have a significant amount of common ground, they will be able to successfully understand one another with little extra effort. Conversely, individuals with vastly different backgrounds will need to take extra steps to communicate effectively, such as defining special terms, avoiding jargon and colloquialisms, appreciating details about the other’s cultural assumptions, or learning a foreign language.

The Bible is not exempt from this process of communication. The Scriptures are meant to be read, understood, and put into practice (Luke 8:4–15; James 1:18), a task that requires effort and study on the part of its readers (Acts 17:11; 2 Tim. 2:15). Everyone who reads the Bible is involved in this interpretative process, though readers will vary in their hermeneutical self-consciousness and skill. Thus, although readers are able to understand and appropriate much of the Bible without any special training in hermeneutical principles, such training is appropriate and helpful, both in attaining self-consciousness in interpretation and in acquiring new skills and insights in the effort to become a better reader.

The Development of Hermeneutics

The church has benefited from a long history of thinking about the nature and purpose of interpreting its Scriptures, and that reflection has resulted in a wide variety of hermeneutical theories and practices. How does one determine the meaning of a text? Is meaning the truth embedded within the passage? Or is it the original author’s intention in writing? Or does the text act independently of its author and history, either because it stands on its own terms or because it only “means” anything in interaction with readers? The answers to these questions will determine how readers approach a text, the questions they expect that text to answer, and the tools they use in interpretation.

From the early church to the Enlightenment. The early church emphasized the ability of the biblical text to convey heavenly truth, whether that truth was conceived as doctrinal teaching or absolute ethical rules. While the “literal meaning” of many texts could often supply simple truths and maxims, such a reading was at other times inadequate and could appear incompatible with what were considered basic and fundamental beliefs. Various allegorical techniques were therefore employed to explain such problematic texts. Interpreters often viewed the literal and historical features of the text as a starting point in the search for fuller meaning, as symbolic pointers to moral principles, absolute truths, or eternal realities. These practices were systematized throughout the Middle Ages and resulted in an extensive development of tradition. Church tradition, in turn, provided a degree of protection from the potential for arbitrariness in allegorical techniques, insisting that interpretation must be guided by the “rule of faith,” the traditional teaching and faith of the church.

Beginning in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, scholarship moved to distance itself from such tradition. The Protestant Reformers, dissatisfied with the rule of church tradition, sought to displace its authority with the direct rule of Scripture. They therefore returned to the original biblical text, engaging in critical study of the text itself and translating the Bible into the vernacular to make it more widely accessible. In the centuries that followed, Enlightenment scholars went a step further in their rejection of the church as the sole repository of knowledge. Instead, they asserted, knowledge was acquired through scientific inquiry and critical study. Such inquiry could be applied to any field: the forces of nature, human anatomy, or the interpretation of texts. The meaning of a text was not some abstract truth or heavenly principle; rather, meaning was determined by the human author’s original intention in writing and was therefore a historical matter. The intention of an author could be better exposed and understood through a more complete study of both the language in which a text was written and the historical circumstances that surrounded it. Many of these same emphases had been championed by the Protestant Reformers; yet the Enlightenment thinkers differed on one key point: the Reformers never questioned that the text was the word of God.

From the Enlightenment to the present. This favorable attitude toward historical research dwindled over the centuries. In its place authors emphasized the primacy of the text as text, apart from any connection to its origin and history. Literature, it is argued, ultimately operates independently from its author’s intention. All that matters is the text, and it is the reader’s job to understand the text on its own terms, apart from the contingencies surrounding its creation. To that end, interpreters should pay careful attention to the text’s literary features, including its plot structure, characterization, themes, and use of imagery. An interesting example of this hermeneutical dynamic is found in John 19:22, where Pilate asserts, “What I have written, I have written.” Pilate’s words quickly take on significance far beyond their author’s intention, primarily because they are juxtaposed with other themes in John, such as testimony and the kingship of Christ.

More recent approaches have emphasized the role of the reader in the construction of meaning. Interpretation, it is argued, is determined by the interaction between reader and text; readers bring their own presuppositions to the task of interpretation, and such assumptions determine meaning. The author and the historical context of the text will exert some influence, but the primary determinant of meaning is the present reader in his or her present environment. This is not to say that the text “means” whatever a reader wants it to mean; rather, it makes meaning contingent upon the contemporary environment and not subject to anything external to individual readers. On the one hand, readers must“actualize” the text by applying and appropriating it within an environment alien to the original. On the other, readers have the right, and in some cases the responsibility, of undermining the text, particularly if that text assists in the oppression of others.

Elements of an Effective Hermeneutic

An effective hermeneutic requires keeping each of these elements in constant balance with one another. God’s word is truthful and fully trustworthy, yet it is given to his people through individual human authors, authors who wrote in a particular context to a particular audience at a particular time. Understanding the Bible therefore requires knowledge of the purposes of these authors in their specific historical contexts. Nevertheless, our primary access to authorial intention is through the biblical text itself. Finally, understanding always requires personal interaction with, and application of, the text of Scripture to each person’s own life and circumstances. Thus, hermeneutics involves the simultaneous interaction of a variety of perspectives—truth, author, text, and reader—each of which cannot function properly without the others. What follows here is an outline of the most important hermeneutical tools required for such a weighty endeavor.

Linguistics

An appreciation of the nature, structure, and function of language is fundamental to any interpretative endeavor. Obviously, this applies first of all to the specific languages in which the books of the Bible were originally composed. Each language has its own unique vocabulary, grammar, and syntax, and structures available to a writer in one language often are absent in another. Thus, while it is often necessary and acceptable to rely on translations (Neh. 7:73–8:12), readers should be aware that translation itself involves a degree of unavoidable interpretation.

A more general analysis of language is also useful. Understanding the typical patterns by which authors will string sentences together is necessary for following a writing’s train of thought. This tool, called “discourse analysis,” operates above the sentence level, attempting to understand and explain how sentences function in conjunction with one another in order to produce meaningful paragraphs, and how those paragraphs in turn operate within the overarching purpose of the discourse. These patterns of discourse can vary on the basis of book, author, language, culture, and literary genre, but there are also features of effective discourse common to all communication. Thus, while the principles and rules of communication are often intuitively grasped, understanding language, both generally and specifically, is foundational to the task of interpretation.

Literature and Literary Theory

The biblical writers are concerned not only with the informational content of their writing, but also with the manner in which that content is communicated. The words, patterns of speech, style, and imagery of any text provide significant insight into its purpose and message, apart from that text’s specific propositional content. The diversity of language used in the Gospels provides an example of this. Each of the four Gospel authors has a slightly different concern in his writing. John’s purpose, “that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31), explains his frequent use of courtroom language, such as “testimony” and “witness” (e.g., John 21:24). Mark, by contrast, sweeps the reader along a fast-paced and intensely personal exposition of Jesus’ life and death through the terseness and immediacy of his narration. Attention to these literary details allows the reader to more fully participate in the world of the text.

Such decisions will often depend upon a thorough analysis of genre. A reader naturally interprets historical narrative differently from poetry and didactic material. Furthermore, the conventions of different genres change over time. The book of Acts, for example, despite its essentially historical character, does not appear concerned with recording an exact dictation of the many speeches it reports, despite modern expectations that historical writing should be as precise as possible. The classification of ancient genres and the description of their respective conventions therefore require a good deal of analysis and sensitivity, but often such insights are provided by a careful and open reading of the text.

History

As the product of a particular author at a particular time, each book of the Bible is situated within its own unique historical context. Paul, for example, while perhaps conscious of the importance of his letters for posterity, wrote to specific churches or individuals with a singular purpose. This particularity of author, audience, and circumstance can often cause interpretative problems. Thus, while background studies are not always necessary to get the general idea of the author’s message, they can be invaluable in protecting readers from anachronism and enabling them to better appreciate the author’s purpose and perspective.

Historical study is assisted by specialized disciplines. Archaeology, for example, focuses on the beliefs, habits, practices, and history of ancient cultures, harnessing a wealth of evidence to that end. Similarly, anthropology and other social sciences are able to explore facets of modern cultures in order to better assess cross-cultural presuppositions and behaviors, many of which provide insight into ancient civilizations that shared similar attitudes. These methods provide the reader with the information necessary to understand a text in terms consistent with its cultural backdrop, highlighting both the similarities and the differences between the Bible and its environment. Recent discoveries of ancient Hittite treaties, for example, shed light on the “cutting ceremony” recorded in Gen. 15. These treaties detail similar ceremonies in which the vassal of a king would walk between hewed animal carcasses as a symbol of allegiance; if disobedience occurred, the vassal would share the fate of the animals. A similar ceremony occurs in Genesis, but with an interesting twist at the end: God, not Abram, passes through the pieces (15:17).

Humility and the Attitude of the Reader

Careful attention in interpretation requires a great deal of humility. It is difficult to overstate the importance of the attitude of the reader for an effective hermeneutic. Being a good reader requires willingness to share and participate in the world of the author and the text, a willingness that postpones judgment and expects personal change. This, in turn, requires a spirit of self-criticism, a commitment to defer one’s own presuppositions in favor of those of the text. Although readers are never able to fully distance themselves from their cultural situation and assumptions, the study of hermeneutics, among other things, can provide tools and skills for self-criticism and self-awareness, skills that enable the reader to better understand, appreciate, and appropriate the meaning of a text. Even a peripheral understanding of the complexities of interpretation can help readers develop an attitude of humility, imagination, and expectation as they approach the Scriptures.

Such humility is a prerequisite for application. The depth of meaning embedded in any text, and especially within the Bible, provides the humble reader with a rich and powerful tool for personal growth. Having better understood the world of the text on its own terms, readers are able to “project” that world onto themselves and their environment, to appropriate its meaning in a new and possibly foreign context. Thus, Jesus promises that those who hear, understand, and put his word into practice will yield a crop “some thirty, some sixty, some a hundred times what was sown” (Mark 4:20).

Unique Features of Biblical Interpretation

Certain unique features of the biblical text can create special opportunities and challenges for the Christian interpreter. These challenges are at work in the Bible’s own interpretation of itself. The Bible was written by many different authors over the course of a long period of history; it is therefore not surprising to find later authors reflecting on earlier periods. This innerbiblical interpretation offers the Christian insights into the unique nature of biblical hermeneutics and therefore provides a foundational model in approaching the Bible as the word of God.

The common and preeminent assumption that grounds innerbiblical interpretation is the commitment to ultimate divine authorship. Thus, the writer of Hebrews, though affirming the diversity of human authorship in the Bible (1:1), regularly introduces OT quotations with statements such as “God says” (1:5), “he spoke through David” (4:7), and “the Holy Spirit says” (3:7). Other writers tend to prefer the formula “it is written,” but each of these reflects a common presupposition that the Scriptures are ultimately delivered by God (2 Pet. 1:21).

Divine authorship means, at the very least, that there is a depth of meaning and purpose to the text, a depth often hidden even from the human author (1 Pet. 1:10–12). Psalm 2, for example, probably originally served as a coronation hymn used to celebrate the appointment of a new king in Israel. Yet the NT understands this psalm as a prophecy fulfilled in the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Acts 13:33; Heb. 5:5). The intention of the original speaker can even be at odds with God’s intention, such as when Caiaphas claims, “It is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish” (John 11:50; cf. Acts 5:35–39). In this case, the irony of Caiaphas’s statement creates a powerful testimony, contrary to his intent, and is used by John to promote confidence in Jesus.

Furthermore, because the Scriptures are from God, they have a consistent and central focus. The NT unhesitatingly views all of Scripture, in all its diversity, as focused, by virtue of divine inspiration, on the person and work of Jesus Christ. This is seen in, for example, Luke 24:13–35, where the resurrected Jesus, “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” explains to his disciples “what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself” (cf. John 5:39; 12:41). This central focus on Christ requires the Christian interpreter to understand any individual verse in light of its context within the canon, to operate with the same assumption as the NT apostles, that all the Scriptures are concerned with testifying to Jesus the Christ.

Additionally, Paul views both Testaments as the special possession and once-for-all foundation of God’s church (Eph. 2:19–20; cf. Acts 2:42). The church, from a NT perspective, is the primary audience of the entirety of Scripture (1 Pet. 1:12) and is therefore uniquely entrusted with understanding and proclaiming its message (Matt. 28:18–20). While the Scriptures themselves are the only infallible guide for interpretation, believers should not forsake the teaching and tradition of the church (2 Thess. 2:15).

Finally, full understanding of the Bible requires the work of the Holy Spirit in conjunction with the faith of the reader. Belief and understanding go together (John 10:38), and both are the result of the unique work of the Holy Spirit (16:13). The proof that such understanding has taken place is the godly life of the believer (Rom. 2:13; James 1:22–25). The reverse is also true: disobedience works against understanding the riches of God’s Word (James 1:21). Such considerations underline the importance of the hermeneutical task. The tools and principles of hermeneutics are valuable only insofar as they enable the reader to better understand and appropriate the biblical message, to hear the word of God and respond appropriately.

Hermeneutics is the science and practice of interpretation. It can refer more generally to the philosophy of human understanding, or more specifically to the tools and methods used for interpreting communicative acts.

Human communication takes place in a variety of ways: through the use of nonverbal signs, through speech, and through writing. Effective communication requires some degree of shared belief, knowledge, and background between the participants. If the communicators have a significant amount of common ground, they will be able to successfully understand one another with little extra effort. Conversely, individuals with vastly different backgrounds will need to take extra steps to communicate effectively, such as defining special terms, avoiding jargon and colloquialisms, appreciating details about the other’s cultural assumptions, or learning a foreign language.

The Bible is not exempt from this process of communication. The Scriptures are meant to be read, understood, and put into practice (Luke 8:4–15; James 1:18), a task that requires effort and study on the part of its readers (Acts 17:11; 2 Tim. 2:15). Everyone who reads the Bible is involved in this interpretative process, though readers will vary in their hermeneutical self-consciousness and skill. Thus, although readers are able to understand and appropriate much of the Bible without any special training in hermeneutical principles, such training is appropriate and helpful, both in attaining self-consciousness in interpretation and in acquiring new skills and insights in the effort to become a better reader.

The Development of Hermeneutics

The church has benefited from a long history of thinking about the nature and purpose of interpreting its Scriptures, and that reflection has resulted in a wide variety of hermeneutical theories and practices. How does one determine the meaning of a text? Is meaning the truth embedded within the passage? Or is it the original author’s intention in writing? Or does the text act independently of its author and history, either because it stands on its own terms or because it only “means” anything in interaction with readers? The answers to these questions will determine how readers approach a text, the questions they expect that text to answer, and the tools they use in interpretation.

From the early church to the Enlightenment. The early church emphasized the ability of the biblical text to convey heavenly truth, whether that truth was conceived as doctrinal teaching or absolute ethical rules. While the “literal meaning” of many texts could often supply simple truths and maxims, such a reading was at other times inadequate and could appear incompatible with what were considered basic and fundamental beliefs. Various allegorical techniques were therefore employed to explain such problematic texts. Interpreters often viewed the literal and historical features of the text as a starting point in the search for fuller meaning, as symbolic pointers to moral principles, absolute truths, or eternal realities. These practices were systematized throughout the Middle Ages and resulted in an extensive development of tradition. Church tradition, in turn, provided a degree of protection from the potential for arbitrariness in allegorical techniques, insisting that interpretation must be guided by the “rule of faith,” the traditional teaching and faith of the church.

Beginning in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, scholarship moved to distance itself from such tradition. The Protestant Reformers, dissatisfied with the rule of church tradition, sought to displace its authority with the direct rule of Scripture. They therefore returned to the original biblical text, engaging in critical study of the text itself and translating the Bible into the vernacular to make it more widely accessible. In the centuries that followed, Enlightenment scholars went a step further in their rejection of the church as the sole repository of knowledge. Instead, they asserted, knowledge was acquired through scientific inquiry and critical study. Such inquiry could be applied to any field: the forces of nature, human anatomy, or the interpretation of texts. The meaning of a text was not some abstract truth or heavenly principle; rather, meaning was determined by the human author’s original intention in writing and was therefore a historical matter. The intention of an author could be better exposed and understood through a more complete study of both the language in which a text was written and the historical circumstances that surrounded it. Many of these same emphases had been championed by the Protestant Reformers; yet the Enlightenment thinkers differed on one key point: the Reformers never questioned that the text was the word of God.

From the Enlightenment to the present. This favorable attitude toward historical research dwindled over the centuries. In its place authors emphasized the primacy of the text as text, apart from any connection to its origin and history. Literature, it is argued, ultimately operates independently from its author’s intention. All that matters is the text, and it is the reader’s job to understand the text on its own terms, apart from the contingencies surrounding its creation. To that end, interpreters should pay careful attention to the text’s literary features, including its plot structure, characterization, themes, and use of imagery. An interesting example of this hermeneutical dynamic is found in John 19:22, where Pilate asserts, “What I have written, I have written.” Pilate’s words quickly take on significance far beyond their author’s intention, primarily because they are juxtaposed with other themes in John, such as testimony and the kingship of Christ.

More recent approaches have emphasized the role of the reader in the construction of meaning. Interpretation, it is argued, is determined by the interaction between reader and text; readers bring their own presuppositions to the task of interpretation, and such assumptions determine meaning. The author and the historical context of the text will exert some influence, but the primary determinant of meaning is the present reader in his or her present environment. This is not to say that the text “means” whatever a reader wants it to mean; rather, it makes meaning contingent upon the contemporary environment and not subject to anything external to individual readers. On the one hand, readers must“actualize” the text by applying and appropriating it within an environment alien to the original. On the other, readers have the right, and in some cases the responsibility, of undermining the text, particularly if that text assists in the oppression of others.

Elements of an Effective Hermeneutic

An effective hermeneutic requires keeping each of these elements in constant balance with one another. God’s word is truthful and fully trustworthy, yet it is given to his people through individual human authors, authors who wrote in a particular context to a particular audience at a particular time. Understanding the Bible therefore requires knowledge of the purposes of these authors in their specific historical contexts. Nevertheless, our primary access to authorial intention is through the biblical text itself. Finally, understanding always requires personal interaction with, and application of, the text of Scripture to each person’s own life and circumstances. Thus, hermeneutics involves the simultaneous interaction of a variety of perspectives—truth, author, text, and reader—each of which cannot function properly without the others. What follows here is an outline of the most important hermeneutical tools required for such a weighty endeavor.

Linguistics

An appreciation of the nature, structure, and function of language is fundamental to any interpretative endeavor. Obviously, this applies first of all to the specific languages in which the books of the Bible were originally composed. Each language has its own unique vocabulary, grammar, and syntax, and structures available to a writer in one language often are absent in another. Thus, while it is often necessary and acceptable to rely on translations (Neh. 7:73–8:12), readers should be aware that translation itself involves a degree of unavoidable interpretation.

A more general analysis of language is also useful. Understanding the typical patterns by which authors will string sentences together is necessary for following a writing’s train of thought. This tool, called “discourse analysis,” operates above the sentence level, attempting to understand and explain how sentences function in conjunction with one another in order to produce meaningful paragraphs, and how those paragraphs in turn operate within the overarching purpose of the discourse. These patterns of discourse can vary on the basis of book, author, language, culture, and literary genre, but there are also features of effective discourse common to all communication. Thus, while the principles and rules of communication are often intuitively grasped, understanding language, both generally and specifically, is foundational to the task of interpretation.

Literature and Literary Theory

The biblical writers are concerned not only with the informational content of their writing, but also with the manner in which that content is communicated. The words, patterns of speech, style, and imagery of any text provide significant insight into its purpose and message, apart from that text’s specific propositional content. The diversity of language used in the Gospels provides an example of this. Each of the four Gospel authors has a slightly different concern in his writing. John’s purpose, “that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31), explains his frequent use of courtroom language, such as “testimony” and “witness” (e.g., John 21:24). Mark, by contrast, sweeps the reader along a fast-paced and intensely personal exposition of Jesus’ life and death through the terseness and immediacy of his narration. Attention to these literary details allows the reader to more fully participate in the world of the text.

Such decisions will often depend upon a thorough analysis of genre. A reader naturally interprets historical narrative differently from poetry and didactic material. Furthermore, the conventions of different genres change over time. The book of Acts, for example, despite its essentially historical character, does not appear concerned with recording an exact dictation of the many speeches it reports, despite modern expectations that historical writing should be as precise as possible. The classification of ancient genres and the description of their respective conventions therefore require a good deal of analysis and sensitivity, but often such insights are provided by a careful and open reading of the text.

History

As the product of a particular author at a particular time, each book of the Bible is situated within its own unique historical context. Paul, for example, while perhaps conscious of the importance of his letters for posterity, wrote to specific churches or individuals with a singular purpose. This particularity of author, audience, and circumstance can often cause interpretative problems. Thus, while background studies are not always necessary to get the general idea of the author’s message, they can be invaluable in protecting readers from anachronism and enabling them to better appreciate the author’s purpose and perspective.

Historical study is assisted by specialized disciplines. Archaeology, for example, focuses on the beliefs, habits, practices, and history of ancient cultures, harnessing a wealth of evidence to that end. Similarly, anthropology and other social sciences are able to explore facets of modern cultures in order to better assess cross-cultural presuppositions and behaviors, many of which provide insight into ancient civilizations that shared similar attitudes. These methods provide the reader with the information necessary to understand a text in terms consistent with its cultural backdrop, highlighting both the similarities and the differences between the Bible and its environment. Recent discoveries of ancient Hittite treaties, for example, shed light on the “cutting ceremony” recorded in Gen. 15. These treaties detail similar ceremonies in which the vassal of a king would walk between hewed animal carcasses as a symbol of allegiance; if disobedience occurred, the vassal would share the fate of the animals. A similar ceremony occurs in Genesis, but with an interesting twist at the end: God, not Abram, passes through the pieces (15:17).

Humility and the Attitude of the Reader

Careful attention in interpretation requires a great deal of humility. It is difficult to overstate the importance of the attitude of the reader for an effective hermeneutic. Being a good reader requires willingness to share and participate in the world of the author and the text, a willingness that postpones judgment and expects personal change. This, in turn, requires a spirit of self-criticism, a commitment to defer one’s own presuppositions in favor of those of the text. Although readers are never able to fully distance themselves from their cultural situation and assumptions, the study of hermeneutics, among other things, can provide tools and skills for self-criticism and self-awareness, skills that enable the reader to better understand, appreciate, and appropriate the meaning of a text. Even a peripheral understanding of the complexities of interpretation can help readers develop an attitude of humility, imagination, and expectation as they approach the Scriptures.

Such humility is a prerequisite for application. The depth of meaning embedded in any text, and especially within the Bible, provides the humble reader with a rich and powerful tool for personal growth. Having better understood the world of the text on its own terms, readers are able to “project” that world onto themselves and their environment, to appropriate its meaning in a new and possibly foreign context. Thus, Jesus promises that those who hear, understand, and put his word into practice will yield a crop “some thirty, some sixty, some a hundred times what was sown” (Mark 4:20).

Unique Features of Biblical Interpretation

Certain unique features of the biblical text can create special opportunities and challenges for the Christian interpreter. These challenges are at work in the Bible’s own interpretation of itself. The Bible was written by many different authors over the course of a long period of history; it is therefore not surprising to find later authors reflecting on earlier periods. This innerbiblical interpretation offers the Christian insights into the unique nature of biblical hermeneutics and therefore provides a foundational model in approaching the Bible as the word of God.

The common and preeminent assumption that grounds innerbiblical interpretation is the commitment to ultimate divine authorship. Thus, the writer of Hebrews, though affirming the diversity of human authorship in the Bible (1:1), regularly introduces OT quotations with statements such as “God says” (1:5), “he spoke through David” (4:7), and “the Holy Spirit says” (3:7). Other writers tend to prefer the formula “it is written,” but each of these reflects a common presupposition that the Scriptures are ultimately delivered by God (2 Pet. 1:21).

Divine authorship means, at the very least, that there is a depth of meaning and purpose to the text, a depth often hidden even from the human author (1 Pet. 1:10–12). Psalm 2, for example, probably originally served as a coronation hymn used to celebrate the appointment of a new king in Israel. Yet the NT understands this psalm as a prophecy fulfilled in the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Acts 13:33; Heb. 5:5). The intention of the original speaker can even be at odds with God’s intention, such as when Caiaphas claims, “It is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish” (John 11:50; cf. Acts 5:35–39). In this case, the irony of Caiaphas’s statement creates a powerful testimony, contrary to his intent, and is used by John to promote confidence in Jesus.

Furthermore, because the Scriptures are from God, they have a consistent and central focus. The NT unhesitatingly views all of Scripture, in all its diversity, as focused, by virtue of divine inspiration, on the person and work of Jesus Christ. This is seen in, for example, Luke 24:13–35, where the resurrected Jesus, “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” explains to his disciples “what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself” (cf. John 5:39; 12:41). This central focus on Christ requires the Christian interpreter to understand any individual verse in light of its context within the canon, to operate with the same assumption as the NT apostles, that all the Scriptures are concerned with testifying to Jesus the Christ.

Additionally, Paul views both Testaments as the special possession and once-for-all foundation of God’s church (Eph. 2:19–20; cf. Acts 2:42). The church, from a NT perspective, is the primary audience of the entirety of Scripture (1 Pet. 1:12) and is therefore uniquely entrusted with understanding and proclaiming its message (Matt. 28:18–20). While the Scriptures themselves are the only infallible guide for interpretation, believers should not forsake the teaching and tradition of the church (2 Thess. 2:15).

Finally, full understanding of the Bible requires the work of the Holy Spirit in conjunction with the faith of the reader. Belief and understanding go together (John 10:38), and both are the result of the unique work of the Holy Spirit (16:13). The proof that such understanding has taken place is the godly life of the believer (Rom. 2:13; James 1:22–25). The reverse is also true: disobedience works against understanding the riches of God’s Word (James 1:21). Such considerations underline the importance of the hermeneutical task. The tools and principles of hermeneutics are valuable only insofar as they enable the reader to better understand and appropriate the biblical message, to hear the word of God and respond appropriately.

During the time of Jesus and in the couple of centuries prior, Judaism was not a monolithic entity but was comprised of different groups with varying religious concerns and political interests. This multifaceted nature of Judaism has caused scholars to question whether it would be better to speak of Judaisms rather than Judaism. Was Judaism cut from a whole cloth, or was it a box of fabric scraps? Perhaps it is best to speak of Judaism as a single entity, but one comprised of various factions with diverse beliefs and interests. This conclusion is justified because the diverse sentiments and interests were responses to the same religious and political issues, such as Torah, the temple, and foreign occupiers.

Five of the important parties in ancient Judaism were the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Essenes, the Zealots, and the Herodians. The first three seem to have first emerged in reaction to the rise of the Hasmonean priest-kings in the mid-second and first centuries BC, and the other two in response to the occupation of Palestine by the Romans and their establishment of the Herods as the rulers of Israel.

Pharisees

According to Josephus. The best source of information on the Pharisees, apart from the Gospels themselves, is the Jewish historian Josephus, who discusses the beliefs of various Jewish factions. In consideration of his Roman audience, he depicts these groups as Jewish philosophical schools. In his Antiquities, Josephus indicates a rough outline of the beliefs of the Pharisees and their political position in relation to the Sadducees and the general populace.

Josephus gives the following points in summation of the Pharisees’ beliefs. (1) The Pharisees believed some things are the result of fate, whereas other things are the result of human choice. (2) The Pharisees believed that the soul survives death in a place of either reward or punishment, and in the resurrection of the body. (3) Besides believing in the authority of Scripture, the Pharisees also had an authoritative body of oral tradition.

The Pharisees and the Sadducees had a difficult relationship, due not only to different religious beliefs but also to conflicting political aspirations. Josephus suggests that Jewish leaders gave patronage to one group or the other, or suppressed one group or the other, sometimes violently. In regard to the general populace, the Pharisees had a much better relationship with them than did the Sadducees, to the point that when Sadducees were magistrates, they had to rule according to the beliefs of the Pharisees or else the people would not listen to them.

In the New Testament. In the Synoptic Gospels, the Pharisees were one of the groups that opposed Jesus. It seems that the Pharisees most strongly opposed Jesus on issues related to their received tradition, which they considered to be as binding as the OT law. Two such legal issues were ceremonial washings before meals and working on the Sabbath. All three Synoptic Gospels narrate the Pharisees questioning Jesus concerning his and his disciples’ failure to follow the tradition of the elders by eating with “unclean,” that is, “unwashed,” hands (Matt. 15:1–2; Mark 7:1–5; Luke 11:39–41). Concerning breaking the Sabbath, the Pharisees confronted Jesus on various occasions, such as when Jesus healed on the Sabbath (Matt. 12:9–14; Mark 3:1–5; Luke 6:6–11) and when his disciples picked grain while walking through a field (Matt. 12:1–8; Mark 2:23–28; Luke 6:1–5).

In response to accusations concerning breaking the traditions of the elders, Jesus affirmed the priority of mercy in the face of human need that supersedes laws concerning the Sabbath by saying that the Sabbath was made for humans, not humans for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27), or that the Son of Man (Jesus) was Lord of the Sabbath (Matt. 12:8; Mark 2:28; Luke 6:5). He also said that God desires mercy, not sacrifice (Matt. 12:7).

Jesus’ critique of the Pharisees concentrated on their neglecting mercy toward fellow humans for the sake of their tradition. This is especially clear in Matthew, where Jesus’ critique of the Pharisees includes indictments against them for concentrating on the fine points of the law but neglecting justice and mercy (12:7; 23:23).

In the Gospel of John, the Pharisees are again usually depicted as adversaries of Jesus and also in league with other Jewish authorities in plotting to arrest and kill Jesus (7:32; 11:47–57). One passage suggests that they were divided concerning Jesus (9:16). One Pharisee, Nicodemus, came to Jesus by night (John 3), defended Jesus before his peers (7:50), and brought spices to prepare Jesus’ body for burial after his death (19:39).

The Pharisees were not always antagonistic toward Jesus. From time to time, they were on the same side of an issue, such as Jesus’ confrontation with the Sadducees over the resurrection (Luke 20:27–40). Nicodemus, mentioned above, was quite sympathetic toward Jesus. The apostle Paul identifies himself as a Pharisee in regard to keeping the law in Phil. 3:5; Acts 26:5, and in a confrontation with Jerusalem authorities in Acts 23:6. Also, some early Christians were said to be Pharisees (Acts 15:5).

Relationship with rabbinic Judaism. An issue concerning the Pharisees is their relationship with later rabbinic Judaism. There are basically two viewpoints on this matter, and both involve the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in AD 70. One position maintains that when the dust settled from the destruction of the temple, only the Pharisees remained standing, and rabbinic Judaism is their heir. Another view holds that after AD 70 sectarian Judaism disappeared, and rabbinic Judaism emerged from a coalescence of various Jewish groups. Although one cannot be certain, it seems that the former view may be closer to the truth, since in the Mishnah, Sadducean legal opinion is contrasted with Pharisaic, and the Pharisaic is invariably considered correct.

Sadducees

The Sadducees were an elite group of Jews connected with the priesthood. “Sadducee” probably means “Son of Zadok,” a descendant of the high priest Zadok from the time of David. Some members of the Qumran community used the term “Son of Zadok” as a self-designation as well, suggesting some common ancestry, if not direct identification, of the Sadducees and some members of the Qumran community.

Along with the Pharisees, the Sadducees were a religious-political group that sought the support of the ruling powers. It is in the context of the patron-retainer relationship that we first hear of the Sadducees. Josephus relates how the Hasmonean ruler John Hyrcanus switched from being the patron of the Pharisees to that of the Sadducees. When the Pharisee Eliezer suggested that Hyrcanus step down from the high priesthood due to his uncertain lineage, Hyrcanus became very angry and wanted Eliezer to be executed. The rest of the Pharisees suggested that he merely be bound and whipped, since they had a tradition of passing light sentences. A Sadducee suggested that they passed such a light sentence because they agreed with Eliezer that Hyrcanus was unsuitable to be high priest. Hyrcanus then cast his support behind the Sadducees and abolished the laws that the Pharisees had given to the populace.

Josephus gives the following general description of the Sadducees’ beliefs and relationship with the general populace. (1) The Sadducees rejected fate; things are the result of human action alone. Along with this, God stands aloof from humans concerning good and evil actions. Good and evil are the result of human action. (2) The Sadducees believed that the soul dies along with the body. (3) They accepted only the written law and had no oral tradition. Some take this last point to mean that they accepted only the Pentateuch as Scripture, but this goes beyond what Josephus says about them.

Josephus goes on to write that Sadducees were as contentious in their disputes with fellow Sadducees as with people outside the group, and they did not hold their elders in esteem. They had influence over the elite, but no say with the populace at large.

The Sadducees are mentioned in the Synoptic Gospels, but not in John, although the “chief priests” who plotted against Jesus with the Pharisees (e.g., John 11:46) probably were Sadducees. All three Synoptic Gospels relate the narrative in which the Sadducees posed the hypothetical question concerning whose wife a woman would be in the resurrection if she outlived seven husbands. Jesus answered that they understood neither the Scriptures nor the power of God, and that God was the God of the living and not the dead (Matt. 22:23–33; Mark 12:18–27; Luke 20:27–40).

The book of Acts confirms that the Sadducees were closely connected to the priesthood (Acts 4:1; 5:17), and that they disputed with the Pharisees over the resurrection (Acts 23:6–8).

Essenes

The Essenes are the third “philosophical school” mentioned by Josephus. Most scholars consider the Qumran sectarians who produced the DSS to be Essenes. This has created a number of circular arguments, since the DSS are then used to confirm the nature of Essene beliefs. That being said, there is good evidence that the Qumran sectarians were at least in part Essene. The Essenes are not mentioned in the NT or in rabbinic literature, but they do appear in the writings of Josephus, Philo of Alexandria, and Pliny the Elder.

Josephus delineates the beliefs of the Essenes as follows. (1) They ascribed every happening to God. (2) They believed in the immortality of the soul.

Josephus writes at great length concerning the Essenes’ way of life. They lived an ascetic lifestyle, avoided pleasure, and devoted themselves to prayer. They shared all things in common and lived in harmony with one another. Some Essenes avoided marriage, whereas others regarded marriage and procreation as too central to human life to avoid. Certain Essenes could predict the future and interpret dreams. Concerning sacrifices, Josephus mentions that although they sent offerings to the temple, they had their own, superior sacrifices.

Philo writes that the Essenes were much admired due to their holy lives, living peaceably with one another and holding to the truth. Contrary to Josephus, Philo says that the Essenes did not sacrifice, but through study they kept their minds pure and holy.

The Essenes, as Josephus and Philo describe them, seem similar to the Qumran sectarians. The Qumran sectarians believed that God determines the fate of people (1QS 3:13–4:26). Although the sectarians believed in the immortality of the soul as well as divine reward and punishment, this does not seem to be emphasized in their writings.

Zealots

Scholars tend to use “Zealots” as a general term to refer to three different groups mentioned by Josephus: brigands, Sicarii, and Zealots. The three groups have different political ideologies and emerged at different times in the first century. They can all be described as revolutionaries.

The brigands were motivated not by religious or political ideology but by survival. Displaced from the traditional economic structure of Palestine—the agricultural village—by the Romans, the brigands stole from Jew and Roman alike. They hated the Romans because the Romans had driven them into poverty through taxation and transformation of the economy from subsistence-based agriculture to cash crops that could be sold more readily. (Money could be shipped to Rome more easily than crops.)

The other two groups, the Sicarii and the Zealots, fought the Romans and Jewish collaborators for political and religious reasons. They emerged at different times during the first century, and they should not be lumped together, for their methodologies and goals were somewhat different.

Josephus writes about what he calls the “fourth philosophy,” which he considers an alien element introduced into the religion and politics of Israel, begun in AD 6 by Judas the Galilean and Zadok the Pharisee. Their slogan was “No king but God,” and they engaged in a short-lived rebellion. It seems unclear whether the fourth philosophy should be a category that includes the brigands, the Sicarii, and the Zealots, or whether it is a group unto itself. Whatever the case, Josephus makes clear that this fourth philosophy is an anomaly in the history of Israel.

The Sicarii were a group of assassins who emerged in the AD 40s–50s. They specialized in mixing into Jerusalem crowds and murdering Jews who were friendly with the Romans, mainly the wealthy. The high priest Jonathan was one of their victims. At the start of the first Roman war, they commanded Jewish troops but were driven out by fellow Jews. They spent the rest of the war at Masada, conducting inconsequential exploits. They killed themselves in AD 73–74 rather than be captured by the Romans. Josephus writes that the leader of the Sicarii at the beginning of the first Roman war was Menahem, the son or grandson of Judas of Galilee. It has been speculated that Judas Iscariot’s surname may be derived from Sicarii, but the etymology is uncertain.

The Zealots emerged at the start of the first Roman war (AD 66–70). Josephus mentions them mainly in connection with the Roman war and seldom in other sections of his writings. They consisted mainly of people displaced by Roman activity in Galilee. They targeted the aristocracy that collaborated with Rome, the Romans themselves, and other revolutionary groups. One of Jesus’ disciples was called “Simon the Zealot” (Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13), but this is likely a reference to his zealous faith.

The first Roman war erupted when the Roman procurator Florus looted the temple. When nothing was done concerning this, the lower priests, the captain of the temple guard, Eleazar, and other revolutionary leaders decided to terminate the temple sacrifice made on the emperor’s behalf. This essentially started the Roman war and gave rise to the Zealots.

Herodians

The Herodians are mentioned three times in the Gospels. They are reported to have plotted, along with the Pharisees, to kill Jesus after he healed a man with a withered hand (Mark 3:6). They are also described, along with the Pharisees, as trying to trap Jesus concerning the lawfulness of paying taxes to Caesar (Matt. 22:16; Mark 12:13).

The Herodians were aristocrats who supported the Herodian dynasty and the Romans, whose support made that dynasty possible. There seems to be some overlap between the Herodians and the Sadducees; Mark 8:15 has Jesus warning his disciples concerning the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod (some ancient witnesses read “Herodians”), whereas the parallel in Matt. 16:6, 11 has Jesus warning his disciples concerning the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Their religious beliefs may have been similar to those of the Sadducees. Too little information about them exists to permit drawing strong conclusions. One can safely say, however, that the Herodians were pro-Roman aristocrats who joined forces with the anti-Roman Pharisees in opposing Jesus.

In the NT, “Jews” (Ioudaioi) is an ethnic and religious term to describe the people of Judah. In Jesus’ day, Jews were distinguished from Samaritans (John 4:9, 22). Gradually the term began to be used more in a religious than in an ethnic sense, and it has come to represent the descendants from Abraham as a whole and religious converts who regard the Mosaic law and customs as the inalienable religious foundation for faith and practices (Mark 7:3; John 2:6).

The Gospels

In the Synoptic Gospels the term “Jews” is used largely in the phrase “the king of the Jews” with reference to Jesus (Matt. 2:2; 27:11, 29; Mark 15:2, 9, 12, 18; Luke 23:3, 37). Born as the king of the Jews, Jesus claimed to have come to fulfill the law of Moses instead of abolishing it (Matt. 5:17). He emphasized the importance of practicing the law in obedience (Matt. 7:24–27), and he rebuked the Pharisees and the scribes for teaching the law without carrying it out (Matt. 23). They opposed him, not only because they rejected his claim to be the Messiah, but also because they viewed his teaching and practices as destabilizing their religious status quo (Matt. 12:1–8; John 5:10; 11:48).

The Jews are represented in the Gospels by both the upper class (e.g., Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes, chief priests) and the lower classes (the crowds). Usually the religious upper class would not accept Jesus’ teaching and challenged him by asking questions or denying his authority (Matt. 15:1; 16:1). The crowds generally accepted Jesus’ teaching and experienced his power to heal and other benefits. The Synoptic account of the opposition by the upper class is contrasted with the widespread opposition to Jesus by the “Jews” in general in John’s Gospel. But Matthew and Luke also highlight Jesus’ lament of the unrepentant Jewish cities (Matt. 11:20–24; Luke 10:12–15), indicating that resistance to Jesus’ teaching was a common phenomenon among the Jews.

Jesus responded to the unbelieving Jews with strong rebuke and condemnation (Matt. 12:30–32; 21:33–46). When Jesus healed a servant of a Roman centurion and marveled at the amazing faith of this Gentile (8:5–13), Jesus predicted that “the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness” because of unbelief, whereas the Gentiles will come to eat with Abraham in the kingdom of heaven (8:11–12). In spite of the unbelief of the Jews, the privilege to hear the gospel was given to them first. Jesus sent out the twelve disciples, instructing them that they should not go anywhere among the Gentiles or enter the towns of the Samaritans, but instead go “to the lost sheep of Israel” (Matt. 10:6 [cf. Rom. 1:16]).

The term “Jews” occurs only four times in the Synoptics outside the phrase “king of the Jews,” but seventy-one times in the Gospel of John. John uses the term especially as a technical one for those Jews who were hostile to Jesus and his followers. Whereas the Synoptics focus on the Jewish leaders’ rejection of Jesus’ messianic actions, John focuses on their rejection of his teaching that he is the Son of God in unique relationship with the Father. Jesus in John is not only the “one and only” (monogenēs) of God (1:18), but also the fulfiller of what the temple signifies and all the Jewish tradition and customs represent. John thus describes the Jewish opposition to Jesus as much more widespread and intense than that in the Synoptics, presenting the Jews as opposing Jesus’ teaching because of their loyalty to Jewish tradition (5:15–18; 6:41; 7:1–2, 13; 8:31–57; 9:22; 10:31–33; 19:7–12, 38; 20:19).

Acts and the Pauline Letters

In the book of Acts the term “Jews” (eighty-one occurrences) is used especially with reference to the Jewish people who oppose Paul’s law-free gospel (9:23; 13:45, 50; 14:2, 4; 17:5; 18:12, 14; 20:3; 21:11; 22:30; 23:12; 24:9).

In his letters, Paul refers to “Jews” primarily in an ethnic and religious sense without connoting that they have theological antagonism against the gospel. The Jews are thus contrasted with the Gentiles in that they are “the people of Israel”: “Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises” (Rom. 9:4). While Paul acknowledges the continuity of Jewish identity through their lineage from Abraham, he distinguishes true Jews from false Jews in terms of Jesus’ accomplishment of redemption. Paul says, “A person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code” (2:29). This distinction of true Jews from false Jews resonates with his distinction of true Israel from false Israel (9:6). The redefinition of the group of spiritual Israelites is the result of Jesus’ death and resurrection according to the OT prophecies. Those who believe in Jesus are reckoned as “children of Abraham” according to the gospel announced in Gen. 12:3 (Gal. 3:7–8).

Paul’s presentation of spiritual Jews is foreseen in Jesus’ statement that the Jews who do not believe in him are not Abraham’s children but rather the children of the devil (John 8:30–44). In 1 John the children of God are defined in terms of love rather than ethnic lineage (3:10). According to the book of Revelation, those “who say they are Jews” are not, but are a “synagogue of Satan” (2:9; 3:9). These passages show that salvation is obtained through faith in Jesus rather than through the ethnic lineage of Abraham and observances of the Mosaic law (Rom. 3:20–28).

These polemics against the Jews and Jewish law do not necessarily make the NT teachings anti-Semitic or anti-Judaic. What the NT polemicizes is neither the Jewish nation nor Judaism but rather the unbelief of the Jews who rejected Jesus, inasmuch as Jesus is the Messiah, who has come in flesh and fulfilled the prophecies of the OT.

The concepts of purity and purification are largely unfamiliar to modern Western readers of the Bible. These terms often appear in cultic contexts and are used to refer to physical, ritual, and ethical purity. They are most frequently applied to the process needed to restore someone to a state of purity so that he or she could participate in ritual activities once again (Lev. 22:4–7). These terms are cultural and theological, serving to constrain actions and behaviors through definite boundaries; thus, in their ancient use they have little to do with modern notions of hygiene (e.g., diseases that may be caught from a pig [Lev. 13]; the medical advantages of washing [Lev. 15]; quarantining a leper [Lev. 13]). Although some have attempted to relate the rules of purity to simple physical events, such modern medical rationale cannot account for the range of prohibitions or find explicit support in the text.

Old Testament

The law of Moses. According to Lev. 10:10, it was the duty of the priests to “distinguish between the holy and the common, between the unclean and the clean” and to teach the nation of Israel the difference between the two. God required that his people observe purification rites when they came into his presence for worship. Ritual purity was intended to teach God’s holiness and moral purity; thus purification rituals functioned to prepare individuals to approach God (Exod. 19:10; Num. 8:15). These fundamental regulations and rites are outlined in Mosaic law.

Two major sections of the Torah describe ritual purity and the laws of purification: Lev. 11–15 and Num. 19. Here the need for purification resulted from direct or indirect contact with any one of a number of natural processes, including childbirth (Lev. 12:1–8), scale disease (Lev. 13:1–14:32), genital discharges (Lev. 15:1–33), the carcasses of certain animals (Lev. 11:1–47), and human corpses (Num. 19:1–22). Although both the duration of impurity and the rite of purification for each of these conditions differ, there are three distinct characteristics of ritual impurity: (1) the sources of ritual impurity generally were natural and more or less unavoidable; (2) it was not necessarily sinful to contract these impurities; (3) these conditions conveyed temporary loss of ritual purity.

Although sexual discharge, contact with corpses and carcasses, and the contraction of diseases were sources of impurity, they were unavoidable in the normal course of life. Israelites were obligated to reproduce (Gen. 1:28; 9:7), and they, along with their priests, were obligated to bury their dead (Lev. 21:1–4). Therefore, many of these impurities were unavoidable and, though not encouraged, not necessarily sinful. Further, these conditions conveyed a temporary loss of purity. All the impurities described in Lev. 11–15 and Num. 19 were not permanent and had specific rites of purification. These rites included washings (a man who had a discharge waited seven days and then washed his clothes and bathed in order to be clean [Lev. 15:13]), offerings (after the birth of a child, a mother had to wait a certain period and then bring certain offerings to be cleansed “from her flow of blood” [12:7–8]), and other procedures (a “leprous” man who had been healed had to go through an elaborate ceremony to be declared clean [14:4–20]; a “leprous” house went through a similar process [14:48–53]). The ultimate instance of cleansing was the Day of Atonement, which required blood as the purifying agent: “[The priest] shall sprinkle some of the blood on [the altar] with his finger seven times to cleanse it and to consecrate it from the uncleanness of the Israelites” (16:19).

A final characteristic of ritual purity is that it was highly graded; that is, there were various degrees of impurities. Corpse impurity was especially serious and highly contagious. One could contract corpse impurity through direct contact, proximity (being in the same tent with a corpse [Num. 19:14]), or by merely touching the bone or the grave of a human (19:16). The individual who contracted corpse impurity was able to contaminate other objects and individuals. Major impurities also demanded greater time for purification (seven days rather than one). Unlike major impurities, minor impurities lasted only until sundown and were not contagious. Individuals might contract minor impurity from contact with unclean carcasses (whether by touching [Lev. 11:24, 27] or carrying [Lev. 11:25, 28]), someone defiled with corpse impurity (Lev. 22:4, 6; Num. 19:22), a diseased person or house (Lev. 13:45–46; 14:46–47), or discharge from either a man or a woman (Lev. 15:5–11, 19–23, 26–27). The duration of minor impurity was only a day (“until evening” [Lev. 11:24–25, 27–28, 39–40]), and one was purified either by bathing or washing one’s clothing.

The Prophets and the Writings. Outside the Mosaic law, the terms of “purity” and “purification” are much less common; however, at times they are taken up figuratively to describe sin. Loss of purity is used figuratively for transgression. For example, the technical term for “menstrual impurity” is used figuratively to illustrate the sin of Israel: “Zion stretches out her hands, but there is no one to comfort her. . . . Jerusalem has become an unclean thing among them” (Lam. 1:17); and in Ezek. 36:17, “When the people of Israel were living in their own land, they defiled it by their conduct and their actions. Their conduct was like a woman’s monthly uncleanness in my sight.”

It was not the ritual purification that ultimately mattered for the prophets, but rather the forgiveness from God that rendered people pure from sin. Thus, purification is a figure of God’s forgiveness; God says, “Your hands are full of blood! Wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight; stop doing wrong” (Isa. 1:15–16). God promises cleansing in key passages in Ezekiel: “I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols” (Ezek. 36:25; cf. 36:33); “they will no longer defile themselves with their idols and vile images or with any of their offenses, for I will save them from all their sinful backsliding, and I will cleanse them” (37:23).

Although there are “those who are pure in their own eyes and yet are not cleansed of their filth” (Prov. 30:12), it is only God who can promise, “I will cleanse them from all the sin they have committed against me and will forgive all their sins of rebellion against me” (Jer. 33:8). Painfully aware of his sin with Bathsheba, David cries out, “Wash away all my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin. . . . Cleanse me with hyssop, and I will be clean. . . . Create in me a pure heart, O God” (Ps. 51:2, 7, 10).

New Testament

In the NT, the idea of ceremonial purity as an important element in Jewish life appears in John 11:55; Acts 21:23; 24:18. But just as in the prophets, the notion of purity is applied to a life lived in wholehearted devotion to God. An individual is purified when obeying the truth (1 Pet. 1:22). James describes repentance in terms of purity: “Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded” (James 4:8); and he describes helping those in distress as the kind of genuine piety that “God our Father accepts as pure and faultless” (James 1:27).

The concepts of purity and purification are largely unfamiliar to modern Western readers of the Bible. These terms often appear in cultic contexts and are used to refer to physical, ritual, and ethical purity. They are most frequently applied to the process needed to restore someone to a state of purity so that he or she could participate in ritual activities once again (Lev. 22:4–7). These terms are cultural and theological, serving to constrain actions and behaviors through definite boundaries; thus, in their ancient use they have little to do with modern notions of hygiene (e.g., diseases that may be caught from a pig [Lev. 13]; the medical advantages of washing [Lev. 15]; quarantining a leper [Lev. 13]). Although some have attempted to relate the rules of purity to simple physical events, such modern medical rationale cannot account for the range of prohibitions or find explicit support in the text.

Old Testament

The law of Moses. According to Lev. 10:10, it was the duty of the priests to “distinguish between the holy and the common, between the unclean and the clean” and to teach the nation of Israel the difference between the two. God required that his people observe purification rites when they came into his presence for worship. Ritual purity was intended to teach God’s holiness and moral purity; thus purification rituals functioned to prepare individuals to approach God (Exod. 19:10; Num. 8:15). These fundamental regulations and rites are outlined in Mosaic law.

Two major sections of the Torah describe ritual purity and the laws of purification: Lev. 11–15 and Num. 19. Here the need for purification resulted from direct or indirect contact with any one of a number of natural processes, including childbirth (Lev. 12:1–8), scale disease (Lev. 13:1–14:32), genital discharges (Lev. 15:1–33), the carcasses of certain animals (Lev. 11:1–47), and human corpses (Num. 19:1–22). Although both the duration of impurity and the rite of purification for each of these conditions differ, there are three distinct characteristics of ritual impurity: (1) the sources of ritual impurity generally were natural and more or less unavoidable; (2) it was not necessarily sinful to contract these impurities; (3) these conditions conveyed temporary loss of ritual purity.

Although sexual discharge, contact with corpses and carcasses, and the contraction of diseases were sources of impurity, they were unavoidable in the normal course of life. Israelites were obligated to reproduce (Gen. 1:28; 9:7), and they, along with their priests, were obligated to bury their dead (Lev. 21:1–4). Therefore, many of these impurities were unavoidable and, though not encouraged, not necessarily sinful. Further, these conditions conveyed a temporary loss of purity. All the impurities described in Lev. 11–15 and Num. 19 were not permanent and had specific rites of purification. These rites included washings (a man who had a discharge waited seven days and then washed his clothes and bathed in order to be clean [Lev. 15:13]), offerings (after the birth of a child, a mother had to wait a certain period and then bring certain offerings to be cleansed “from her flow of blood” [12:7–8]), and other procedures (a “leprous” man who had been healed had to go through an elaborate ceremony to be declared clean [14:4–20]; a “leprous” house went through a similar process [14:48–53]). The ultimate instance of cleansing was the Day of Atonement, which required blood as the purifying agent: “[The priest] shall sprinkle some of the blood on [the altar] with his finger seven times to cleanse it and to consecrate it from the uncleanness of the Israelites” (16:19).

A final characteristic of ritual purity is that it was highly graded; that is, there were various degrees of impurities. Corpse impurity was especially serious and highly contagious. One could contract corpse impurity through direct contact, proximity (being in the same tent with a corpse [Num. 19:14]), or by merely touching the bone or the grave of a human (19:16). The individual who contracted corpse impurity was able to contaminate other objects and individuals. Major impurities also demanded greater time for purification (seven days rather than one). Unlike major impurities, minor impurities lasted only until sundown and were not contagious. Individuals might contract minor impurity from contact with unclean carcasses (whether by touching [Lev. 11:24, 27] or carrying [Lev. 11:25, 28]), someone defiled with corpse impurity (Lev. 22:4, 6; Num. 19:22), a diseased person or house (Lev. 13:45–46; 14:46–47), or discharge from either a man or a woman (Lev. 15:5–11, 19–23, 26–27). The duration of minor impurity was only a day (“until evening” [Lev. 11:24–25, 27–28, 39–40]), and one was purified either by bathing or washing one’s clothing.

The Prophets and the Writings. Outside the Mosaic law, the terms of “purity” and “purification” are much less common; however, at times they are taken up figuratively to describe sin. Loss of purity is used figuratively for transgression. For example, the technical term for “menstrual impurity” is used figuratively to illustrate the sin of Israel: “Zion stretches out her hands, but there is no one to comfort her. . . . Jerusalem has become an unclean thing among them” (Lam. 1:17); and in Ezek. 36:17, “When the people of Israel were living in their own land, they defiled it by their conduct and their actions. Their conduct was like a woman’s monthly uncleanness in my sight.”

It was not the ritual purification that ultimately mattered for the prophets, but rather the forgiveness from God that rendered people pure from sin. Thus, purification is a figure of God’s forgiveness; God says, “Your hands are full of blood! Wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight; stop doing wrong” (Isa. 1:15–16). God promises cleansing in key passages in Ezekiel: “I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols” (Ezek. 36:25; cf. 36:33); “they will no longer defile themselves with their idols and vile images or with any of their offenses, for I will save them from all their sinful backsliding, and I will cleanse them” (37:23).

Although there are “those who are pure in their own eyes and yet are not cleansed of their filth” (Prov. 30:12), it is only God who can promise, “I will cleanse them from all the sin they have committed against me and will forgive all their sins of rebellion against me” (Jer. 33:8). Painfully aware of his sin with Bathsheba, David cries out, “Wash away all my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin. . . . Cleanse me with hyssop, and I will be clean. . . . Create in me a pure heart, O God” (Ps. 51:2, 7, 10).

New Testament

In the NT, the idea of ceremonial purity as an important element in Jewish life appears in John 11:55; Acts 21:23; 24:18. But just as in the prophets, the notion of purity is applied to a life lived in wholehearted devotion to God. An individual is purified when obeying the truth (1 Pet. 1:22). James describes repentance in terms of purity: “Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded” (James 4:8); and he describes helping those in distress as the kind of genuine piety that “God our Father accepts as pure and faultless” (James 1:27).

The concepts of purity and purification are largely unfamiliar to modern Western readers of the Bible. These terms often appear in cultic contexts and are used to refer to physical, ritual, and ethical purity. They are most frequently applied to the process needed to restore someone to a state of purity so that he or she could participate in ritual activities once again (Lev. 22:4–7). These terms are cultural and theological, serving to constrain actions and behaviors through definite boundaries; thus, in their ancient use they have little to do with modern notions of hygiene (e.g., diseases that may be caught from a pig [Lev. 13]; the medical advantages of washing [Lev. 15]; quarantining a leper [Lev. 13]). Although some have attempted to relate the rules of purity to simple physical events, such modern medical rationale cannot account for the range of prohibitions or find explicit support in the text.

Old Testament

The law of Moses. According to Lev. 10:10, it was the duty of the priests to “distinguish between the holy and the common, between the unclean and the clean” and to teach the nation of Israel the difference between the two. God required that his people observe purification rites when they came into his presence for worship. Ritual purity was intended to teach God’s holiness and moral purity; thus purification rituals functioned to prepare individuals to approach God (Exod. 19:10; Num. 8:15). These fundamental regulations and rites are outlined in Mosaic law.

Two major sections of the Torah describe ritual purity and the laws of purification: Lev. 11–15 and Num. 19. Here the need for purification resulted from direct or indirect contact with any one of a number of natural processes, including childbirth (Lev. 12:1–8), scale disease (Lev. 13:1–14:32), genital discharges (Lev. 15:1–33), the carcasses of certain animals (Lev. 11:1–47), and human corpses (Num. 19:1–22). Although both the duration of impurity and the rite of purification for each of these conditions differ, there are three distinct characteristics of ritual impurity: (1) the sources of ritual impurity generally were natural and more or less unavoidable; (2) it was not necessarily sinful to contract these impurities; (3) these conditions conveyed temporary loss of ritual purity.

Although sexual discharge, contact with corpses and carcasses, and the contraction of diseases were sources of impurity, they were unavoidable in the normal course of life. Israelites were obligated to reproduce (Gen. 1:28; 9:7), and they, along with their priests, were obligated to bury their dead (Lev. 21:1–4). Therefore, many of these impurities were unavoidable and, though not encouraged, not necessarily sinful. Further, these conditions conveyed a temporary loss of purity. All the impurities described in Lev. 11–15 and Num. 19 were not permanent and had specific rites of purification. These rites included washings (a man who had a discharge waited seven days and then washed his clothes and bathed in order to be clean [Lev. 15:13]), offerings (after the birth of a child, a mother had to wait a certain period and then bring certain offerings to be cleansed “from her flow of blood” [12:7–8]), and other procedures (a “leprous” man who had been healed had to go through an elaborate ceremony to be declared clean [14:4–20]; a “leprous” house went through a similar process [14:48–53]). The ultimate instance of cleansing was the Day of Atonement, which required blood as the purifying agent: “[The priest] shall sprinkle some of the blood on [the altar] with his finger seven times to cleanse it and to consecrate it from the uncleanness of the Israelites” (16:19).

A final characteristic of ritual purity is that it was highly graded; that is, there were various degrees of impurities. Corpse impurity was especially serious and highly contagious. One could contract corpse impurity through direct contact, proximity (being in the same tent with a corpse [Num. 19:14]), or by merely touching the bone or the grave of a human (19:16). The individual who contracted corpse impurity was able to contaminate other objects and individuals. Major impurities also demanded greater time for purification (seven days rather than one). Unlike major impurities, minor impurities lasted only until sundown and were not contagious. Individuals might contract minor impurity from contact with unclean carcasses (whether by touching [Lev. 11:24, 27] or carrying [Lev. 11:25, 28]), someone defiled with corpse impurity (Lev. 22:4, 6; Num. 19:22), a diseased person or house (Lev. 13:45–46; 14:46–47), or discharge from either a man or a woman (Lev. 15:5–11, 19–23, 26–27). The duration of minor impurity was only a day (“until evening” [Lev. 11:24–25, 27–28, 39–40]), and one was purified either by bathing or washing one’s clothing.

The Prophets and the Writings. Outside the Mosaic law, the terms of “purity” and “purification” are much less common; however, at times they are taken up figuratively to describe sin. Loss of purity is used figuratively for transgression. For example, the technical term for “menstrual impurity” is used figuratively to illustrate the sin of Israel: “Zion stretches out her hands, but there is no one to comfort her. . . . Jerusalem has become an unclean thing among them” (Lam. 1:17); and in Ezek. 36:17, “When the people of Israel were living in their own land, they defiled it by their conduct and their actions. Their conduct was like a woman’s monthly uncleanness in my sight.”

It was not the ritual purification that ultimately mattered for the prophets, but rather the forgiveness from God that rendered people pure from sin. Thus, purification is a figure of God’s forgiveness; God says, “Your hands are full of blood! Wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight; stop doing wrong” (Isa. 1:15–16). God promises cleansing in key passages in Ezekiel: “I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols” (Ezek. 36:25; cf. 36:33); “they will no longer defile themselves with their idols and vile images or with any of their offenses, for I will save them from all their sinful backsliding, and I will cleanse them” (37:23).

Although there are “those who are pure in their own eyes and yet are not cleansed of their filth” (Prov. 30:12), it is only God who can promise, “I will cleanse them from all the sin they have committed against me and will forgive all their sins of rebellion against me” (Jer. 33:8). Painfully aware of his sin with Bathsheba, David cries out, “Wash away all my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin. . . . Cleanse me with hyssop, and I will be clean. . . . Create in me a pure heart, O God” (Ps. 51:2, 7, 10).

New Testament

In the NT, the idea of ceremonial purity as an important element in Jewish life appears in John 11:55; Acts 21:23; 24:18. But just as in the prophets, the notion of purity is applied to a life lived in wholehearted devotion to God. An individual is purified when obeying the truth (1 Pet. 1:22). James describes repentance in terms of purity: “Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded” (James 4:8); and he describes helping those in distress as the kind of genuine piety that “God our Father accepts as pure and faultless” (James 1:27).

The Jewish ruling body in Jerusalem that played a part in Jesus’ execution and the persecution of the early church. The Greek word for this body, synedrion, often is translated as “council,” and in ancient sources other than the Bible the word does not denote one specific ruling authority but rather is used for many different city or regional councils. However, in the NT the word refers to the council in Jerusalem headed by the high priest that was charged by the Roman authorities with maintaining order among the Jewish people. According to Jewish tradition, Moses instituted the Sanhedrin at God’s prompting, so that its members might lead the nation as God’s anointed elders (see Num. 11:16–17). Further tradition says that Ezra called the Sanhedrin together again following the exile.

In the first century AD, the Sanhedrin functioned as the highest judicial authority of the nation of Israel (which sheds light on Matt. 5:22). The Sanhedrin contained members from the Sadducees and the Pharisees, along with other prominent members of the Jewish establishment. In the Gospel of Mark it is described as being made up of “the high priest, and all the chief priests, the elders and the teachers of the law” (Mark 14:53). As the highest authority representing the religious establishment of Israel, the Sanhedrin under the high priest Caiaphas played a prominent role in the final conflict that led to Jesus’ crucifixion. John indicates that the Sanhedrin, and Caiaphas in particular, plotted to kill Jesus just after the raising of Lazarus from the dead (John 11:45–53). Caiaphas expressed the fear that the Sanhedrin’s authority would be usurped if Jesus continued to gain popularity through his miracles, and also that a messiah would trigger a backlash of oppression from the Roman rulers.

After Jesus was taken from the garden of Gethsemane, the Sanhedrin tried him on a charge of blasphemy using false testimony, and some of the Gospels also have the accusers claim that Jesus promised to destroy the temple and raise it in three days, taking his words as a literal threat against the temple (Matt. 26:58–68; Mark 14:53–65; Luke 22:63–71; see also John 18:13–27). The Sanhedrin was unable to carry out a sentence of death that the charge of blasphemy called for, however, and so they were forced to bring Jesus to the Roman authorities to achieve their desired result. When Jesus was brought before Pilate, they portrayed his crime as proclaiming himself to be the “King of the Jews,” thereby tailoring the charge to make him look like a revolutionary rather than a religious teacher with whom the Sanhedrin disagreed (Matt. 27:11–14; Mark 15:2–5; Luke 23:2–7; John 18:29–38). The man who arranged for the burial of Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea, is said to be a member of “the Council” (Mark 15:43), but Luke is quick to mention that Joseph had “not consented to their decision or action” regarding Jesus’ fate (Luke 23:51).

Following the death and resurrection of Jesus, the Sanhedrin attempted to suppress the budding Christian movement by arresting Peter and John and having them beaten for preaching about Jesus (Acts 4:1–21). The Sanhedrin also ordered the apostles “not to speak in the name of Jesus” (5:40). Paul, after being arrested, was brought before the Sanhedrin so that they might determine his crime, and he cleverly used the disagreement between the Sadducees and the Pharisees regarding the resurrection of the dead to disrupt the assembly (23:1–9). They then plotted to kill him (23:12–22).

Sisters play a major role in many OT narratives. Sarah was Abraham’s half sister (Gen. 20:12; marriage or intercourse with one’s half sister was later prohibited [Lev. 18:11; 20:17]). More than once he sought to protect himself in a cowardly way by presenting her as his sister, not mentioning that she was also his wife (Gen. 12:10–12; 20). Isaac repeated the sin of his father (Gen. 26). Jacob loved Rachel but was deceived by her father Laban into marrying her older sister Leah, initiating one of the most vicious sibling rivalries in the Bible. Miriam, the sister of Moses, was a prophet and an important leader in her own right (Exod. 15:20; but see Num. 12:1, when she challenged Moses’ authority). Amnon began a bitter feud with his half brother Absalom when Amnon raped Absalom’s sister Tamar (2 Sam. 13). Jeremiah and Ezekiel both depict the northern and southern kingdoms as unfaithful sisters (Jer. 3:6–10; Ezek. 23; cf. Ezek. 16).

Certain biblical stories indicate that sisters were protected by brothers rather than fathers. It is Laban who negotiates the terms of his sister Rebekah’s marriage to Isaac (Gen. 24). Dinah is avenged and defended by her brothers; Jacob does nothing (Gen. 34). Tamar comes under Absalom’s protection, not David’s (2 Sam. 13). In Song of Songs, it is the brothers, not the parents, who supervise the girl (1:6) and who discuss her protection until she comes of age (8:8–9), though she declares she is able to take care of herself (8:10).

In the NT, the most famous sisters are Mary and Martha (Luke 10:38–42), who mourn the death of their beloved brother, Lazarus (John 11). Throughout the NT, the members of the church are often referred to as “brothers and sisters” (e.g., Matt. 18:15; Acts 6:3; 1 Cor. 12:1; Phil. 4:8; James 1:2; 1 John 3:13; many modern Bible versions [such as GW, NIV, NLT, NRSV] translate the Greek term adelphoi as including both men and women), carrying on Jesus’ redefinition of the family: “whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother” (Matt. 12:50). See also Brotherly Love; Brothers and Sisters, Jesus’.

Prior to his crucifixion, Jesus was subject to a Jewish pretrial examination and a formal trial before the Roman governor Pontius Pilate.

In the Gospels the primary components of this judicial process are (1) a private inquiry made by Annas (John 18:13–24); (2) an examination before the Sanhedrin (Matt. 26:57–68 // Mark 14:53–65 // Luke 22:54–71); (3) a hearing before Pilate (Matt. 27:11–14 // Mark 15:2–5 // Luke 23:2–5 // John 18:29–38); (4) a hearing before Herod Antipas (Luke 23:6–16); and (5) Pilate’s verdict (Matt. 27:24–26 // Mark 15:15 // Luke 23:24–25 // John 19:16).

Reasons for Trial and Historicity

The reasons for the hastily devised trial are complex and are rooted in the particular socio-religious environment of Jerusalem at Passover. Jesus’ triumphal entry and his demonstration in the temple were provocative actions that implied his messianic authority. The Judean leadership was fearful that Jesus would create a furor when close to a million Jewish pilgrims were in the environs of Jerusalem at Passover. In this incendiary atmosphere a messianic claim could prompt riots and revolution and force the Roman authorities to intervene militarily, resulting in a reorganizing of authority among the Judean aristocracy (a fear verbalized in John 11:47–53).

The historicity of the trial is questioned on a number of fronts. Would the high priest really convene an emergency nocturnal session of the Sanhedrin to do away with Jesus? Perhaps so, if the situation was desperate enough! A nocturnal hearing would allow Jesus to be tried by the Roman authorities first thing in the morning and to have Jesus taken care of before most Jerusalemites and pilgrims were awake and aware of what was going on. Another primary objection is that there were no Christian witnesses present to relay accounts of the proceedings, especially the private hearings. But one can respond by suggesting that there was probably a desperate curiosity among Jesus’ followers and the crowds in general about what actually took place at the proceedings. Besides the fact that part of the trial took place in public, more information would have been available from attendants, guards, council members, and even from sympathizers with Jesus such as Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea. No one was sworn to secrecy over what transpired. What seems certain is that Jesus had a pretrial hearing with the Sanhedrin and a formal trial before Pilate.

The Judicial Process

During the judicial processes a number of allegations were raised against Jesus. (1) Being a false prophet who was leading the nation astray (Matt. 27:63–64; Luke 23:2, 14). The background to this accusation derives from Deut. 13; 18, concerning false prophets and diviners who lead the nation into idolatry and make false prophecies. This charge is made explicit in the Babylonian Talmud: “Jesus was hanged on the eve of Passover. . . . He is going forth to be stoned because he practiced sorcery and enticed and led Israel astray” (b. Sanh. 43a [cf. 107b]). (2) Speaking against the temple (Matt. 26:61; Mark 14:58). What is “false” about the witnesses against Jesus is not that Jesus did not speak and act against the temple (see Matt. 23–24; Mark 13; Luke 21), but that their testimony did not agree and that they misunderstood Jesus to be saying that he would rebuild another temple of a kind similar to the first. (3) Forbidding the payment of taxes (Luke 23:2). (4) Blasphemy for claiming to be the Son of God (Matt. 26:65; Mark 14:64). (5) Claiming to be the king of the Jews (Mark 15:2; John 18:33).

According to the Fourth Gospel, Jesus initially was led to Annas, at which time he was briefly interviewed about “his disciples and his teaching” (John 18:19). Annas was the father-in-law of Caiaphas and had been the high priest previously (AD 6–15). High priest evidently was a lifetime office, which is why Annas was still addressed as “high priest” (John 18:22–23).

Jesus again was led out, this time to Caiaphas the current high priest. At this point Jesus had a “night trial” before Caiaphas (an act of questionable legality, according to rabbinic law). The basic flow of events includes Caiaphas conducting a cross-examination of Jesus (Matt. 26:59–66; Mark 14:55–64; Luke 22:67–71; John 18:24), Jesus being beaten and abused by his captors (Matt. 26:67–68; Mark 14:65; Luke 22:63–65), and then the Sanhedrin convening at dawn to ratify the night proceedings against Jesus (Matt. 27:1; Mark 15:1; Luke 22:66–71; John 18:28). During the proceedings a number of accusations were brought against Jesus, but the climax was Jesus’ response to the high priest that he would see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven, which combines Dan. 7:13 with Ps. 110:1. The notion that Jesus would share the divine throne with God was deemed blasphemous by the high priest and settled and exceeded the messianic question put to Jesus. The participants of the proceedings condemned Jesus as “worthy of death” (Matt. 26:66; Mark 14:64).

The gathering of the Sanhedrin probably is not a second trial, but more likely it is for the purpose of ratifying the charges made against Jesus. The decision of the Sanhedrin was that Jesus be handed over to Pilate (Matt. 27:2; Mark 15:1; Luke 23:1; John 18:28) for execution, as the Judean leadership did not have the right to exercise the death penalty without official approval (John 18:31). Since blasphemy was not a capital crime under Roman law, however, the delegation emphasized the political nature of Jesus’ message in order to secure the death penalty. Before Pilate, Jesus was charged with a number of offenses, including leading the nation astray, forbidding payment of taxes to Caesar, and claiming to be a king (cf. Luke 23:2). The main features of this segment of the proceedings are the following: (1) Jesus is charged with making kingly claims; (2) Pilate proposes to release Jesus to the Judean crowd as their king, but the crowd chooses Barabbas instead; (3) Jesus is handed over for execution, before which he is mocked and ruthlessly beaten by the Roman soldiers. In all accounts Pilate is portrayed as feeble and self-interested, and his apparent sympathy for Jesus was born out of his habitual opposition to the designs of the high priest.

From a theological perspective, the trial narratives demonstrate that the kingdom of God comes through the kingship of the crucified, and that Jesus is the Suffering Servant of Isa. 53, who was led like a lamb to the slaughter and pierced for our transgressions.